Ban Birth Control? They Wouldn't Dare...

[midnight]

First they came for abortion, but I didn’t care because abortion was for sluts. Then they came for sex ed, but I didn’t care because the kids can learn all they need to know at home. Then they came for birth control, but… Wait a minute! Birth control? They’re coming for birth control? I need that! For nearly a decade prochoicers have been warning that abortion foes were gearing up to go after contraception, but the possibility of losing birth control was too far-out for most people to take seriously. And you know prochoicers—they’re always crying wolf. Well, wake up, sleepyheads, it’s happening.

After the Senate rejected a House attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, Republican Representative Cliff Stearns, chair of the energy and commerce subcommittee, demanded that PP turn over reams of documents going back twenty years. The official purpose was to see if PP’s abortion services, which cannot receive federal funds, are sufficiently segregated from its contraceptive and other health services, which do receive federal dollars. Since Republicans believe this separation is impossible—money is fungible, and all that, except when it goes to a church for supposedly nonsectarian social services—who knows what Stearns and Co. will decide counts as evidence?

Meanwhile, House Republicans continue their attempts to ban federal support for PP, this time through a draft bill on agency funding that would also completely defund Title X, the government’s main family-planning program. Title X, which provides family planning services to more than 5 million mostly low-income people each year, has nothing to do with abortion, which kind of proves that the “fungibility” issue is just a fig leaf. (Bill supporter and Tea Party Caucus member Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican who opposes raising taxes on the wealthy—did I mention that he’s the twenty-fourth-richest member of Congress?—claims that zeroing out birth control funds for poor women is necessary to lower the deficit. Because what could be cheaper than babies?)

As is so often the case in the war on abortion, the most damaging action is in the states. GOP-led governments have voted to cut or eliminate PP funding in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, Texas and New Jersey. Yes, New Jersey, where Governor Chris Christie, hero of Republicans who also happen to be sane, eliminated the state’s $7.5 million budget for family planning. And yes, Texas, where Governor Rick “N-wordhead” Perry slashed family planning funds from $111.5 million to $37.9 million. Meanwhile, since you can always find money for the things you really want, he boosted aid to antichoice crisis pregnancy centers to $8.3 million.http://www.thenation.com/article/163808/ban-birth-control-they-wouldnt-dare?rel=emailNation

[kestrel91316]

1. K& effin' R

[AverageJoe90]

2. Seconded. nt

[The Doctor.]

4. Aw hell.

If I had the resources and will right now, I'd start a campaign among the Tea Party nation about how Democrats want to 'limit birth control' to 'Blacks and Hispanics' so they can keep makin' babies.

That'll strike a chord.

Hmmm... I think I'll go get on that.

You in?

[The Doctor.]

3. I'm having trouble getting over the stupidity of these people.

They want fewer 'poor' people, but at the same time they want to limit access to contraception to 'poor' people.

The more I see, the more certain I am it's all part and parcel to their 'slave labor pool' wet dream for America.

[midnight]

7. I think your second sentence sums this up... They have been

hard pressed to move all over the world looking for slaves... Now they can take women's power away to decide when she wants a baby... Margaret is spinning... These guys are taking women back to the turn of the last century....

"In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated enormous support for her cause. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, women needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent abortions, which were dangerous and usually illegal at that time."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

[surrealAmerican]

13. It all makes sense to me:

They don't want fewer poor people; they want poorer poor people. They want them all to be homeless and starving.

[Devil_Fish]

17. Who said "they want fewer poor people"? Link please??NT

[The Doctor.]

43. Virtue of Rhetoric, not reality.

They give lip service to the poor 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps', and how if only they could eliminate all government largess people would wake up and make themselves 'un-poor', but we know damn well those are bullshit positions the true advocacy behind which are those that want more slave labor.

I kind of hinted at that in my post.

You know... with the "slave labor pool" part. I understand there were quite a few dots I left out. ;)

[AndyTiedye]

5. If the Repigs Win Next Year, Roe v. Wade Will Fall, So Will Griswold v. Connecticut

They only need one more Supreme Court justice, and ALL the reproductive freedom that has been won over the last century will be lost.

[midnight]

8. What a sneaky way to take away women's equality....

[yardwork]

26. This really could happen. It is not hyperbole.

[baldguy]

6. The only real people deserving of human rights are corporations.

The rest of us are either slaves...Excuse me, "employees" or marks...er "customers".

[RandySF]

9. Yes they would..

and they will when they get the chance.

[laylah]

10. What flippin' idiocy

will these people think of NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tammywammy]

11. kick n/t

[Politicalboi]

12. Maybe we should start at the root of this problem

It's called Viagra and we need to stop it NOW! Erections are a choice, and we shouldn't let men have the decision when and where these occur. Even though I myself have never had an erection being female and all, but that doesn't stop me from talking about it, or making it HARDER for men to become HARDER. LOL!

[midnight]

41. Yes-This does seem to be the precursor to the whole problem....

[femrap]

14. And the War on Women

continues unabated and rarely mentioned.

[midnight]

42. I have been searching for the title of a book Naomi Klein wrote

in the 90's about the backlash on Women. She predicted this like she has predicted what the shock and all group is about, and where we are going as a country....

[avebury]

15. They may be able to put woman in the position of having children BUT

that does not mean that the can force women to keep their unwanted children. What do they think will happen if woman start signing over their unwanted children to the state? Just who do they think would be having to pay to raise those kids?

[Missy Vixen]

16. Orphanages

Newt Gingrich thought it was a great idea.

In the meantime, there would be a whole new class of poverty due to the inability to obtain contraception. Consider how many pregnancies might happen yearly to the five million low-income people depending on PP now. Then again, I'm sure the Republicans would tell us that poor people do not deserve to have sex.

:eyes:

[RockaFowler]

18. Free Labor

I guess that way they can have all the free labor they want

[hifiguy]

20. That worked out so well in Romania,

didn't it. Ceaucescu banned abortion and birth control. The toll of human suffering as a result defies description. See http://womenshistory.about.com/od/criminals/p/elena_ceausescu.htm

[Missy Vixen]

33. We need to send all of this to Rachel Maddow

It's head-exploding. Do these people think the Ceaucescu regime is something to freaking aspire to?

EVERY child should be a wanted child. There are still a quarter of a million kids languishing in the foster care system in this country, in case the Republicans don't remember that.

:eyes:

[StarsInHerHair]

38. to read it is so much ...umm- better, but awful

Elena Ceausescu is usually assumed to be responsible for two policies which in the 1970s and 1980s, coupled with some of her husband's policies, were disastrous. Romania under the Ceausescu regime outlawed both abortion and birth control, with Elena Ceausescu's urging. Women under the age of 40 were required to have at least four children, later five.
Nikolai Ceausescu's policies, including that of exporting much of the agricultural and industrial output of the country, caused extreme poverty and hardship for most citizens. Families could not support so many children. Women sought illegal abortions, or gave children up to state-run orphanages.

Eventually, parents were paid to give children to the orphanages; Nikolai Ceausescu planned to create a Romanian Workers Army from these orphans. However, the orphanages had few nurses and had food shortages, causing emotional and physical problems for the children. The Ceausescus endorsed a medical answer to the weakness of many children: blood transfusions. The poor conditions in orphanages meant that these transfusions were often done with shared needles, resulting, predictably and sadly, in AIDS being widespread among the orphans. Elena Ceausescu was head of the state health commission which concluded that AIDS could not exist in Romania.
Anti-government demonstrations in 1989 led to a sudden collapse of the Ceausescu regime, and Nikolai and Elena were tried on December 25 by a military tribunal and executed later that day by a firing squad.

[peace frog]

19. They need those abandoned rugrats as cannon fodder

in their ever-increasing numbers of wars around the globe. Easy come, easy go. Not like anyone ever cared about them from the first.

[droidamus2]

21. In the end...

The abortion movement is not about and has never been about the poor 'preborn babies' that is just the emotional hook that has been used to snare people into believing in the movement (and forking out money for the cause). I remember the pre-Roe V Wade days when the prominent argument I always heard was that being forced to carry to term was a girls/woman's punishment for having out of wedlock sex and being a slut (their word not mine). When Roe V. Wade passed they realized that argument wasn't working so they came up with the 'the poor baby' argument. In the end what the anti-choice movement is is anti-sex (except in a marriage and preferably only to create children we wouldn't want people just having sex because it feels good would we?) and anti-woman (because we all know the woman's place is in serving her man, in the bedroom and out, poppin' out the kids and bein' a Mom - and yes I am being sarcastic).

[Marnie]

22. Since your first sentence is sexist and stunningly stupid.

As well as wildly inaccurate.
I won't bother with the rest as it probably gets even more offensive.

[hifiguy]

23. You are missing the point entirely

and the OP does nothing but quote the article in the link at the bottom of the OP. IN other words, those are not the OP's words. And, btw, the article was written by Katha Pollitt, whose liberal - and satirical - credentials are beyond reproach. Read the whole thing next time. :eyes:

[yardwork]

25. The OP was being sarcastic to make a point. As a feminist woman I appreciate the OP.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[yardwork]

24. Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965. A lot of people don't know that contraception was illegal until 1965.

Contraception was illegal in the state of Connecticut - and many other states as well - until the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. It was this case in 1965 where the Supreme Court found a "right to privacy." This led directly to Roe v. Wade a few years later.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court - and this could happen - then it is possible that the entire concept of a right to privacy would be thrown out. This could lead to contraception becoming illegal in many states again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

[Lucian]

27. Don't those idiots in Washington realize that if MORE kids were born...

there'd be bigger deficits????

Gah! :banghead:

[enough]

29. Katha Pollitt has been doing great writing for a long time. Glad to see this high up on

on the DU Greatest page. She certainly belongs there.

[dogmoma56]

30. they want to make it a crime.. felony to have sex out of wedlock >>link

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

[Swede Atlanta]

31. Republicans are Fascists

They want to make you slaves, whether you are a worker or in the military This serves their corporate masters.

They want to control your personal life because they have "morals" they feel must be imposed on everyone. This was exactly what the Nazis did. This is no different.

Unless the American people wise up this next election and, despite the challenges with the economy, say no to corporatism and moral fascism, they are in for a very rough ride.

[leeroysphitz]

32. Daren't they?

[nomorenomore08]

34. How I would dearly love to "late-term abort" these pieces of shit.

Lucky for them that I have no practical means of doing so.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

35. More people = more profits.

[sarcasmo]

36. Kick.

[Luminous Animal]

37. I'm a long time clinic defense activist. I've aired warnings about this for 3 decades

and mocked regularly by Third Wave feminists.

And here we are.

[elocs]

39. A kick for the first posted story. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. There is a world wide movement by the right to roll back

the 20th century, in a few cases the 19th... this is part of it.