I have always supported a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.....always.

[Razoo]

Women’s Health: I believe women have a right to access healthcare without discrimination and have always supported a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.

I categorically reject the divisive rhetoric of "pro-abortion" labels and support data-driven efforts to reduce abortion rates by improving access to comprehensive sex education as well as affordable family planning.

 

[Razoo]

Remember republican women as elected officials often vote against women ...........

 

[soylentgreen]

Women’s Health: I believe women have a right to access healthcare without discrimination and have always supported a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.

I categorically reject the divisive rhetoric of "pro-abortion" labels and support data-driven efforts to reduce abortion rates by improving access to comprehensive sex education as well as affordable family planning.

You do realise that abortion is only a minor part of the woman's health care issue.

The question here is do you also support women health in their fight to end period poverty as well?

 

[Dragonfly]

The question here is do you also support women health in their fight to end period poverty as well?

Care to explain this a bit more? "Period poverty"?

 

[OceanBlues1]

You do realize that abortion is only a minor part of the woman's health care issue.
The question here is do you also support women health in their fight to end period poverty as well?

What does this term mean? I've never come across it before. Thanks in advance.

 

[soylentgreen]

What does this term mean? I've never come across it before. Thanks in advance.

Interesting. New zealand is having an election as well and this is one of the talking points of political ideals that come up.

Basic argument is that a woman's period is a an unavoidable cost. This effects outcomes with young women's education and work life. So sanitary pads should be subsidised and even free at schools.

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/02/20/period-poverty-contributing-to-inequity-in-nz.html

 

[soylentgreen]

Care to explain this a bit more? "Period poverty"?

See post #6.

 

[weaver2]

The Obama administration's research on health costs showed that one costly health issues, women's reproductive health, and child hood diseases could be cheaply addressed at great savings.

If health insurance could cover free childhood vaccinations and cheap, accessible, effective contraceptives that women controlled, accessible and honest sex education, screening and medicating STD, cheap and accessible pre and post natal health services, making abortions easily accessible so that they could take place sooner in the 1st trimester when they were less expensive and less medically traumatic, screenings of cancer etc.

Only women's contraceptives ever made it into the ACA and Republicans eventually eliminated that also. The unbelievable truth is that conservatives are not interested in saving money if it means women and children, especially poor women and children get services. Their claim that it costs too much money rings hollow since those items were proven to produce the greatest savings.

 

[dex4974]

The Obama administration's research on health costs showed that one costly health issues, women's reproductive health, and child hood diseases could be cheaply addressed at great savings.

If health insurance could cover free childhood vaccinations and cheap, accessible, effective contraceptives that women controlled, accessible and honest sex education, screening and medicating STD, cheap and accessible pre and post natal health services, making abortions easily accessible so that they could take place sooner in the 1st trimester when they were less expensive and less medically traumatic, screenings of cancer etc.

Only women's contraceptives ever made it into the ACA and Republicans eventually eliminated that also. The unbelievable truth is that conservatives are not interested in saving money if it means women and children, especially poor women and children get services. Their claim that it costs too much money rings hollow since those items were proven to produce the greatest savings.

They seem to have a visceral disgust of anything tax related being used to elevate the poor. They're social Darwinists. An empathetic argument won't work because the truth is at the end of the day they are fine if people suffer and die as a result of being ignorant and poor. They literally just don't care because in their world they should never have to be responsible for anybody else.

 

[weaver2]

They seem to have a visceral disgust of anything tax related being used to elevate the poor. They're social Darwinists. An empathetic argument won't work because the truth is at the end of the day they are fine if people suffer and die as a result of being ignorant and poor. They literally just don't care because in their world they should never have to be responsible for anybody else.

The trouble with their philosophy is that it actually cost the state tax money to pay for the eventually much bigger health and social disasters created by not paying for decent care initially when problems were small and correctable.

There was an interesting program/study done in some city (will look it up) that dealt with willing homeless participants. They were given small apartments, helped with daily living challenges, provided with money for food, assigned a medical professional to monitor their health issues, mental and physical, see that they took medications regularly and found work for those that could do so. It was an expensive program but the final analysis showed that the city save several millions of $ with the program.

 

[weaver2]

The trouble with their philosophy is that it actually cost the state tax money to pay for the eventually much bigger health and social disasters created by not paying for decent care initially when problems were small and correctable.

There was an interesting program/study done in some city (will look it up) that dealt with willing homeless participants. They were given small apartments, helped with daily living challenges, provided with money for food, assigned a medical professional to monitor their health issues, mental and physical, see that they took medications regularly and found work for those that could do so. It was an expensive program but the final analysis showed that the city save several millions of $ with the program.

Apparently there have been several cities that have similar programs. They all save the cities money

The shockingly simple, surprisingly cost-effective way to end homelessness

Why aren't more cities using it?

www.motherjones.com

 

[OceanBlues1]

They seem to have a visceral disgust of anything tax related being used to elevate the poor. They're social Darwinists. An empathetic argument won't work because the truth is at the end of the day they are fine if people suffer and die as a result of being ignorant and poor. They literally just don't care because in their world they should never have to be responsible for anybody else.

Absolutely agree. Conservative Republican politicians have proved that more than once, in the way they vote against programs that would help others. Which is one of the reasons why I never vote Republican. I won't vote Republican this year either.

 

[dex4974]

The trouble with their philosophy is that it actually cost the state tax money to pay for the eventually much bigger health and social disasters created by not paying for decent care initially when problems were small and correctable.

There was an interesting program/study done in some city (will look it up) that dealt with willing homeless participants. They were given small apartments, helped with daily living challenges, provided with money for food, assigned a medical professional to monitor their health issues, mental and physical, see that they took medications regularly and found work for those that could do so. It was an expensive program but the final analysis showed that the city save several millions of $ with the program.

Conservative traditionalism is holding back our entire species.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Conservative traditionalism is holding back our entire species.

Yep. The whole "keep the poor in their place" thing has always been very anti-progress. Conservative politicians don't seem to like progress that much, not if there's nothing in it for them.

 

[dex4974]

Yep. The whole "keep the poor in their place" thing has always been very anti-progress. Conservative politicians don't seem to like progress that much, not if there's nothing in it for them.

There is so much lost human potential in the poor. It's funny to watch a "nationalist" not care about elevating the lowest among us to strengthen the nation.

 

[Mashmont]

Women’s Health: I believe women have a right to access healthcare without discrimination and have always supported a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.

I categorically reject the divisive rhetoric of "pro-abortion" labels and support data-driven efforts to reduce abortion rates by improving access to comprehensive sex education as well as affordable family planning.

The only way you make a real change is not through mechanical means, but by changing hearts and minds. You can't substitute one evil with another in the case of abortion and birth control. You have to make people understand ALL sex outside marriage is grievously wrong. That's the only way women are treated with respect. With birth control, they are just seen as sex objects for pleasure.

 

[OceanBlues1]

You can't substitute one evil with another in the case of abortion and birth control. You have to make people understand ALL sex outside marriage is grievously wrong. That's the only way women are treated with respect. With birth control, they are just seen as sex objects for pleasure.

1. There's nothing "evil" about either abortion or birth control.
2. Preventing women from making our own sexual and reproductive choices, such as legally banning abortion and denying women wide access to birth control is not "treating women with respect." In fact, it's the direct opposite.
3. With birth control available, women are able to decide for ourselves when or IF we will get pregnant and have children. Women who have "issues" with BC aren't forced to use it.

 

[code1211]

Remember republican women as elected officials often vote against women ...........

If a woman is pregnant, in the early stages, I have heard that ALL of the unborn are women in the developmental stages with the males splitting off later in gestation.

There are more women than men alive and walking around right now.

It seems like supporting the right of women to abort, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, would be support for the termination of women.

 

[OceanBlues1]

That's the only way women are treated with respect. With birth control, they are just seen as sex objects for pleasure.

I think this statement is total nonsense. There are married women who don't ever want children as well as single ones. They probably use some kind of BC like IUD's to prevent pregnancy and some want to be -- or already are -- permanently sterilized (tubal ligation) to make sure they never end up pregnant. Are these women "evil" for wanting to have sex with their husbands but not wanting kids?

 

[Scrabaholic]

If a woman is pregnant, in the early stages, I have heard that ALL of the unborn are women in the developmental stages with the males splitting off later in gestation.

There are more women than men alive and walking around right now.

It seems like supporting the right of women to abort, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, would be support for the termination of women.

There are 0 unborn women. None, zero, zilch, nada. ALL women are born.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Women’s Health: I believe women have a right to access healthcare without discrimination and have always supported a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.

I categorically reject the divisive rhetoric of "pro-abortion" labels and support data-driven efforts to reduce abortion rates by improving access to comprehensive sex education as well as affordable family planning.

Best to keep the Feds out of any of this situation.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I think this statement is total nonsense. There are married women who don't ever want children as well as single ones. They probably use some kind of BC like IUD's to prevent pregnancy and some want to be -- or already are -- permanently sterilized (tubal ligation) to make sure they never end up pregnant. Are these women "evil" for wanting to have sex with their husbands but not wanting kids?

That you feel compelled ask the question signifies to me that it is a good question. So someone explain to me why Government has any role at all in her sex life?

 

[Robertinfremont]

1. There's nothing "evil" about either abortion or birth control.
2. Preventing women from making our own sexual and reproductive choices, such as legally banning abortion and denying women wide access to birth control is not "treating women with respect." In fact, it's the direct opposite.
3. With birth control available, women are able to decide for ourselves when or IF we will get pregnant and have children. Women who have "issues" with BC aren't forced to use it.

Abortion is pure evil. Birth Control is a solution ahead of a problem.

Women for centuries have proved they can avoid pregnancy with no assistance by the Feds.

 

[weaver2]

Abortion is pure evil. Birth Control is a solution ahead of a problem.Women for centuries have proved they can avoid pregnancy with no assistance by the Feds.

Until you have a plan for taking care of 800,000 additional unwanted babies every year you don't have any right to call abortion or the women who get them evil. As for birth control, you and your party have made contraceptives that women control impossible to obtain for all poor women who now have to rely on condoms 18% failure rate, withdrawal 22% failure rate, rhythm method 25% failure rate and then have the temerity to complain when there are unintended pregnancies and women get abortions.

Real, horrendous, devastating evil is people like you that would force a family to bring a child into the world after they have shown you they could not support it at this time, they could not give it the love it needed and they could not care for it as it should be cared for. That's the face of real evil; someone who would force a woman to give birth to unwanted, unloved, uncared for children. That's just pure disrespect for the child, the mother and the family. That's salving you own ego by wrecking someone else life. Not only have you not thought this through you don't appear to have the capacity to do so.

 

[Lursa]

The only way you make a real change is not through mechanical means, but by changing hearts and minds. You can't substitute one evil with another in the case of abortion and birth control. You have to make people understand ALL sex outside marriage is grievously wrong. That's the only way women are treated with respect. With birth control, they are just seen as sex objects for pleasure.

Who sees women as only sex objects when they are available to enjoy sex? Did this come from your Catholic cult?

And if men only see women that way when they get sex...that's the men's ignorance and stupidity and loss.. Why not re-educate men instead of trying to get women to miss out on enjoying sex? Why punish us?

Seems like your cult is the one teaching men to disrespect women.