Log in

17 September 2008 @ 09:54 am
This publication regrets the error  
As much as crackedmyself and I both love Dan Savage, as she points out, he's wrong about Sarah Palin's support of abstinence education.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," Palin said during a debate in Juneau.

crackedmyself also reminds us, "however, the argument that she appreciates her daughter making a choice when she herself wants to remove the option for other women is spot on."
Crystalcrystalstarr on September 17th, 2008 05:27 pm (UTC)
yes she is pro contraception- but how will this be done when the possible president (McCain) won't approve insurances paying for them. On top of this they both are anti-choice, so if one misses a pill, or god forbid are raped the woman is screwed.
Blozor: Handbasketblozor on September 17th, 2008 11:33 pm (UTC)
From a friend's blog: She also believes that victims should cover the expenses of their own rapes. Because after all, they were asking for it, you know.
Crystal: Mismadcrystalstarr on September 18th, 2008 03:49 am (UTC)
yes, she is just a great lady huh? for womens rights.
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 18th, 2008 03:44 am (UTC)
Insurance should pay for my condoms too, since they're a contraceptive. And I guess for the vegetables I had with the dinner I had with the girl, since they'll make me healthier. And the two glasses of red wine, since that's good for my heart.

Or maybe, just maybe, when I want to have sex with someone, I should just foot the cost of the bill myself and stop wishing for a utopia in which everything is free.
Crystal: closecrystalstarr on September 18th, 2008 04:05 am (UTC)
Well most women DO have to pay for their own birth control now anyways.. so why are you bitchn'? I paid for my IUD, which btw Bush and McCain seem to think is a form of abortion.

What isn't ok is Viagra being covered, but the basic needs to PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES is being taken away. You know what happens with unwanted pregnancies and not having the option of abortion, or the morning after pill?

More people on welfare. Oh but Mccain doesn't support that option either. So guess what, lets take this to the next ugly level ok. Babies in dumpsters, overflowing adoption centers , foster homes, and families homeless.

I guess under McCain and Palin guys better get used to no sex because that will be the only option to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to prevent over-populating this already crowded world.
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 18th, 2008 05:16 am (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
The initial statement I was responding to was the outrage over insurance companies not paying for contraception. I don't believe it should be covered, because of the reasons I gave. You paid for yours, congratulations, you made my point. I wasn't making a comment about any other issue, though I'd be happy to do that if you want. Just please, don't use the snowball effect logic from now on. You sound like someone arguing against gay marriage.
Crystalcrystalstarr on September 18th, 2008 05:18 am (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
And I responded with why it should be paid.
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 18th, 2008 05:51 am (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
Because if we don't provide contraception, we'll have babies in dumpsters? That's like saying that food should be free or everyone will starve, or less severe, that insurance should pay for tylenol or we'll have more murders. Why should the public at large pay for something like this? Your logic is flawed in thatthe arguement contrary to yours is the status quo, but you have the result of the status quo being a different outcome than our current reality. So what gives?
Crystalcrystalstarr on September 18th, 2008 06:08 am (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
Did you not read what I wrote? I said and "lets take it real ugly". In other words I mean worse case scenario. Let's look at it from history's point of view. In 1973 before Roe V Wade and the access of abortion and the better access to birth control pills became available to women(through clinics like Planned Parenthood), life was a lot like this for women.

I don't like McCain or Palins stance on ANY issues that deal with women, because they truly are anti-women in every way. Not progressive, its backwards.
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 19th, 2008 01:12 am (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
First, Roe v Wade is about federal supercession of states' rights to make laws. Abortion was accessible before that, but only on a state-by-state basis. The federal government stripped that right and made it national law. That's a dangerous precedent to start, and if the Roe decision is reversed, it doesn't mean abortion becomes illegal instantly. It just means certain states will have the right to make it illegal. The decision actually has less to do with abortion and more to do with the mandate of the federal government.

I read what you wrote, and that's why I advised against snowball logic. I could easily say that if we make greater access to birth control, more young girls will have sex and the incidence of sexually transmitted disease will skyrocket, we'll have 75% AIDS infection and civilization will break down. See how easy that is? It's because it's fallacial logic.

(By the way, as a Goldwater conservative, I don't actually believe in the illegality of abortion, despise the practice though I might.)
crackedmyselfcrackedmyself on September 20th, 2008 06:01 pm (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
I will be the first to admit that I'm not incredibly knowledgeable on sound business practices, so I'll ask something I've always wondered: wouldn't it make more sense from a financial standpoint for insurance companies to cover contraception? isn't it cheaper for them than covering pregnancies?

I have no problem paying for my own contraception and usually do (I will absolutely let my insurance company pay for it if and when they cover it), but I've always wondered about that from their standpoint.

Why am I asking you? I'm honestly not sure. I'm bored and you seem interesting, I guess. :)
lagizmalagizma on September 20th, 2008 08:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Wrong!
Ditto that for abortions. It's way cheaper to have an abortion and insurance companies can't charge you by family size, just by self vs. family, whether family is two or 200.
(Deleted comment)
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 19th, 2008 01:05 am (UTC)
I think we should define a few terms. "Insurance" is run by private companies who decide what they cover, what they don't, and what they charge. So if you want a private firm to cover something, find one that does, and if none do, start a large appeal to one to get it covered.

If you mean the system the government pays for (or doesn't, in realisitic terms), that's medicare, and uses tax dollars.

Either way, the public at large pays into it. And when you pay for something, you have a right to say where your funds go to. So I have absolutely every right to an opinion on the matter.

You should know better than to use the 25 cent condoms. I've even bought the expensive ones and had them break on me 3 times in one go. The birth control pills you pay for are far more reliable since they effect hormones internally. The extra expense is not because OMG WE HATE WOMEN, it's because they work monumentally better. And I've never seen a condom advertised to help my skin out or control my period pain better (and don't tell me they don't actually do that, because they do).

Think about more than yourself when forming an opinion that effects everyone.
quirkytizzyquirkytizzy on September 19th, 2008 07:55 pm (UTC)
Anarmyofcamp, the line of logic in which you missed in the discussion of the government footing certain bills is that Palin oversaw the funding of a bill that required rape victims to pay for their own rape kit, which is the only way to legally collect DNA evidence in order to prosocute.

We do not require victims of robbery, car thefts, etc etc to pay for the costs accrued during the investigation, so why is Palin suddenly seperating THIS group of victims and demanding that they should pay for the costs of investigation?

That is the key point in many of the discussion's concerning Sarah Palin's policy towards citizen's and what they should be paying.

Edited at 2008-09-19 07:56 pm (UTC)
Ginagina227 on September 17th, 2008 09:21 pm (UTC)
The fact that she supports kids being educated about contraception is nice and all. It's certainly better than that abstinence-only crap. But from what I've been able to ascertain, Sarah Palin believes that all life begins at conception so the morning-after pill is a no-no. How the fuck is that considered pro-contraception when she's ruling out an entire method that woman can use when their first method fails or when they've been raped? "Yes, I'm pro-contraceptive. But only when I feel it's appropriate." Yeah.No.
Blozorblozor on September 17th, 2008 11:21 pm (UTC)
When your mother is running for Vice President and has the headstrong conviction of an Abrams tank, one has to wonder how much of "choice" the girl really had.
Ginagina227 on September 18th, 2008 01:36 am (UTC)
I was thinking that very same thing myself when I first read this post.
Blozorblozor on September 18th, 2008 02:20 am (UTC)
That was the first thing I thought of when they said she "chose" to keep the baby. I don't think there was much choice in the matter. I'm pretty sure it went something like this:

BRISTOL: "Mom, I'm pregnant."
SARAH: "Tell your boyfriend he's getting married."
crackedmyselfcrackedmyself on September 18th, 2008 01:06 am (UTC)
I still think she's scary and dangerous, and I don't think any of her views that don't agree with McCain's will matter, because they won't be acknowledged. I just think she shouldn't be "credited" with views she doesn't share. Bitch is evil enough without adding to it. It takes the focus from the ways she is insane--like the rape kit thing. And the seeing Russia from Alaska thing. And the anti-choice thing. And the fiscal choices she's made. And the... OK, I could go on forever. Lady's crazy, and not because she's a woman, but because she's CRAZY.
Mattie Campanarmyofcamp on September 18th, 2008 03:38 am (UTC)
Nevermind that last comment, it was wrong and off-topic.
crackedmyselfcrackedmyself on September 20th, 2008 06:08 pm (UTC)
Considering I forgot to respond to it, I obviously wasn't that upset. :p