Oct 2, 2018

Trump & The Republican's Psychotic Opposition To Birth Control

1.George Carlin Nails The Republicans On Their Abortion Hypocrisy (They Kill Way More People Than They Save)
2. GOP's War On the Constitution: Religious Liberty (Christians Allowed To Discriminate As They Wish Like A Theocracy) VS Constitutional Freedom (Everyone Is Equal Under The Law)
3. GOP: The Anti-Science Party (Or A Look At The Intellectual Foundations Of America's Nazi Party)

One of the more crazier things the anti-science party has come up with is opposing preventive contraception as "abortion inducing drugs". Even medically an unfertilized egg is not in any sense a precursor to a baby. What the right wing is essentially saying here is that once sperm enters the vagina it has become sacred and it can't be stopped by any artificial means from reaching the womb. Lets use Trump's non-contraceptive sexcapade with Porn Star Stormy Daniels as an example; If Trump pulls out and ejaculates on the Stormy then that is OK, but once Trump's ejaculation enter's Stormy Daniels vagina its up to God (i.e. it would be unholy to prevent it by artificial means!). You can't make this shit up...

TIP/WAG: PHEROMONE PARTIES & ARIZONA'S "PRE-LIFE" LAWS 4/23/2012 Pheromone parties encourage premarital smelling, and Arizona lawmakers declare that pregnancy begins two weeks before conception.

The law he is talking about is this one;

News Report - Extract"Arizona lawmakers have drawn up strict new abortion laws... that decree pregnancy begins two weeks before conception. Final legislative approval was given to a bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, handing Republicans their latest win in ongoing national efforts to impose greater restrictions on abortion. But the bill defines a foetus' gestational age 'as calculated from the first day of the last [mother's] menstrual period'. This would mean, given that a woman does not produce eggs until a fortnight after her period, a baby can be terminated two weeks before it was conceived.

Not having sex is important to Christian and Christianity, most likely an inheritance from Homosexual Church leaders (as pointed out by Joseph Campbell in Occidental Mythology page 157, "...common to all Occidental spirituality - and particularly stressed by our numerous bachelor and homosexual teachers - that spirituality and sexuality are opposed.), who believe women to be "unclean" and sex to be bad. For whatever reason it started, now even non-homosexual people (of the religious Christian sort) see sex as "unclean" and promote abstinence (a religious policy) as something the State should impose on the people (as per the GOP's tradition of religious war on  the the Constitution)

Mother Jones: The Republican War on Contraception - Not satisfied with restricting abortion rights, the GOP is now coming after your birth control.- FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as “justifiable homicide.” 
Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.
“Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn’t in the past few years,” says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center. “In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they’re opposed to birth control,” adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “We couldn’t find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it’s just exploded.”
The first sign of the new assault came last October, when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal “persons.” If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senateback bills that would do just that.

That’s not all. Earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star who’s considered a possible pick for the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nomination, introduced a bill that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason. In other words, if your boss doesn’t want to cover birth control in the company health plan because he says it would offend his religious beliefs, he wouldn’t have to—even if his Cialis was still covered. Rubio’s bill could also allow states to refuse to provide birth control through Medicaid, which provides family planning services to millions of poor women. 

Psychology Today: Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control? Hatred of sin? Political calculation?

It’s common for Americans to imagine that lawmakers must oppose contraception if they’re Catholic or Evangelicals, for example, because they supposedly believe that birth control is a sin. But over 98% of American women use birth control at some point in their lives—INCLUDING Catholics and Evangelicals. People make choices--and so can politicians.
Most Americans of every faith pick and choose which parts of their religion they follow at various times in life (the First Amendment guarantees the right of such convenient selectivity). So there are reasons besides “sin” that so many religiously-oriented people oppose birth control—particularly for other people, here are some of those reasons: 
* Contraception makes it clear that people have sex for pleasure and intimacy
* Contraception effectively limits family size, empowering women
* Contraception reduces a key unwanted consequence of sex, promoting autonomy
   In fact, contraception—which frees people to have sex any time of the month they choose, ejaculating within a vagina rather than nervously trying not to—gives people a sense of autonomy regarding sex. And autonomy is the last thing organized religion wants to promote in people.
* Contraception may make abortion more acceptable
(click here to read article for explanations)
   And not that religion operates by logic, but it should be pointed out constantly that people who oppose abortion should PROMOTE contraception to achieve their ostensible goal....Of course, Americans’ sexual decision-making, and attempts to influence it, take place in the context of our Constitution.
   Religion is specifically prohibited as a factor in American law: the First Amendment says that the government may NOT favor a particular religion, nor demand religious thinking or obedience, in its laws. The radical glory of this right is that individuals are free to worship any way they choose, or to not worship at all. However, no one—no matter how sincere their beliefs—is allowed to impose his or her beliefs on the rest of us. Supposedly.
   Isn’t that what some people worry about regarding Sharia in America—they fear that Muslims will impose their religious beliefs on everyone? As it happens, many of those same people embrace SOME religious beliefs imposed on everyone—as long as they agree with their content. For example, why are crosses allowed in public parks? Why are crèches allowed on city hall lawns each year?
   When people talk about the government “defunding Planned Parenthood,” they’re really talking about allocating less money for low-cost or free sexual health exams, condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, and other forms of contraception. Similarly, talk about the removing the Obamacare birth control mandate is anything but abstract—it actually undermines the contraceptive choices of actual people.
   Think four or five hundred bucks for birth control every year is no big deal? Millions of working people do without doctor visits to get simple antibiotics, and repairs that would make their cars safer, simply because they can’t afford it. For them, four or five hundred bucks is serious money.
   For religious fundamentalists, it’s blood money.
This is one of the more unnecessarily evil things the Trump Administration is doing (though, to be fair, Trump didn't use any sort of protection when having sex with Porn Start Stormy Daniels after realizing she reminded him of his daughter Ivanka. So it does seem to be a policy Trump follows personally!). It doesn't even fit conservative beliefs (just medieval Church beliefs) so why create fake science to push this sort of policy is baffling to say the very least. But pushing junk science to oppress/fear-monger people is a Republican tradition.

The Trump administration’s case against birth control is a stunning distortion of science

On Friday, the Trump administration released long-anticipated rules that relax the Obama-era birth control mandate, which required employers to offer insurance that covered contraception for women.
Effective immediately, some companies can now more easily refuse to cover the cost of birth control by seeking religious or moral exemptions.
To justify this rollback, the administration wrote pages into the new regulations that challenge well-established research on the health impact of birth control — from whether contraceptives reduce unwanted pregnancies to the harms and benefits of the Pill.
Altogether, the case presented against birth control is a stunning distortion of the research on contraception. And it’s anything but novel.
There is a long history of false information shaping women’s health law and policy — part of a broader push to curtail women’s reproductive rights in America. “[These birth control regulations] seem to be part of this larger effort to roll back women’s health care, roll back access to reproductive options,” said Diane Horvath-Cosper, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. “It certainly looks like [the administration is] misusing science to that end.”
Here’s a quick rundown of the various abuses of science that surfaced in the government’s new birth control regulations. Many will be familiar — they echo claims the religious right has been making about the effects of contraception for years.

Yes, birth control does decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies

According to the White House, there isn’t good evidence linking access to birth control to lower rates of unintended pregnancies. More specifically, we don’t actually know that giving more women birth control reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancies at the population level, the new regulations say: “In particular, association and causality can be hard to disentangle.”
What the White House doesn’t mention is that you cannot do a causation-proving experiment on birth control. We know birth control works to reduce the risk of pregnancy, so it would not be ethical to randomly assign some women to use contraception while withholding it from others and waiting to see what happens.
The research we have on the population-level impact of contraceptives is indeed observational, and observational studies can only describe correlations between phenomena, not causation. But even given the limitations, it’s extremely informative.
Just take a look at the research from the CHOICE Project, out of Washington University in St. Louis. For this work, researchers gave out free contraceptives to local teenagers, and followed them for up to three years to see what happened to their rates of pregnancy and abortion.

They published the results in a study in the New England Journal of Medicine: CHOICE participants were significantly less likely to get pregnant and have abortions compared to their American counterparts. As you can see in the chart above, women enrolled in CHOICE had birth rates, abortion rates, and pregnancy rates that were less than half that of the average American. (You can read all about the project here and here.)
“What this shows is that when you take away costs, when you take away barriers, you see increases in the use of more effective methods of birth control and a substantial decline among adolescent pregnancies,” said Megan L. Kavanaugh, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, adding that the CHOICE research is some of the best data out there on the effect of birth control on unwanted pregnancies.
The White House’s claim about correlation and causation also ignores one very basic thing about birth control: It works!


In a world besieged by catastrophes, including the carnage in Las Vegas, President Trump and his allies remain focused, like a laser, on one of their highest priorities:  ending government support for contraceptive services.
While other Administration initiatives have been left by the wayside, the war on birth control persists, and while it has suffered setbacks, access to contraception is being restricted…and the worst is surely to come.  
That’s the conclusion of a new report, “Senseless:  The War on Birth Control,” issued this week by the Population Institute.
The report comes at a crucial time in the escalating and ever-evolving assault on contraception. Last week, the Senate came perilously close to passing an Obamacare repeal bill that would have allowed insurers to drop coverage of contraceptive services from their insurance policies.
In a bid to solidify support among hard-core conservatives, the original Graham-Cassidy bill would have allowed insurers to issue “bare-bones” policies that would sharply limit health care coverage. To make that possible, states would have been required to get a formal waiver from the federal government.  
But when that was not enough to satisfy social conservatives, the drafters amended their bill to allow insurers to delete birth control coverage without a federal waiver.

Now while Brett Kavanaugh didn't actually say he opposed birth control, he did express sympathy for a psychotic position (that preventing the sperm from atatching to an egg once it had entered the vagina is "abortion inducing"). If I got this right, this is a very troubling sign;

CNN: Kavanaugh 'abortion-inducing drug' comment draws scrutiny 

The challenge was brought by a religious group that argued it was being forced to provide health coverage for contraceptives despite its religious objections. The group, Priests for Life, said the "religious accommodation" provided by the Department of Health and Human Services was insufficient. Complying with the accommodation, Priests for Life said, made the group complicit in something that went against its religious beliefs.
Kavanaugh, in dissent, expressed sympathy for the religious challengers.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, on Thursday asked Kavanaugh about the case, that came before him at the DC Circuit.

"That was a group that was being forced to provide certain kind of health coverage over their religious objection to their employees. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first, was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise? And it seemed to me quite clearly it was," Kavanaugh said.
"It was a technical matter of filling out a form in that case," he added. "In that case, they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to."
None of the senators present at the hearing questioned the phrase at the time.
In a press release, however, Planned Parenthood drew attention to the exchange but left out the words "they said," making it appear as if Kavanaugh was speaking for himself.
Beth Lynk, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, acknowledged the error, but still took issue with the fact that she said Kavanaugh had mischaracterized the case and also used a controversial term used by groups opposed to abortion.
"The argument for the lawyers of Priests for Life was that they objected to all birth control," she said. "In Kavanaugh's testimony his description of their objection characterized all types of birth control as 'abortion inducing drugs.'"
"In reaching for a term to describe all types of birth control, the word he chose was 'abortion inducing drugs,"' she said.
Planned Parenthood and groups like the American College of Obstetricians and dispute the concept and phrasing that an IUD induces abortion because it doesn't allow a fertilized egg to implant.
"Saying 'abortion-inducing drugs' to describe contraception is straight out of the anti-choice, anti-science phrase book used to restrict women's access to essential health care," the Center for Reproductive Rights said on Twitter Thursday.
Travis Lenker, a former Kavanaugh clerk who has attended the hearings this week, defended the Supreme Court nominee, saying his language was an accurate summation of the group's position.

Another psychotic position;

After Akin, GOP Makes Extreme Abortion Policy Official
In what will probably strike many people as a monumentally tone-deaf move, the GOP plans to include a plank in its 2012 platform calling for an amendment that would outlaw abortions under any circumstance. CNN reported on the draft language it obtained on Monday night, and the platform committee approved it on Tuesday:
"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

GOP Are Perverts

No comments:

Post a Comment