The party of 'freedom' just voted against a bill to protect access to contraceptives

[Quetzal]

What. A. Joke.

The bill passed the Democratic-controlled House on a vote of 228-195, with all 220 Democrats and eight of the chamber's 211 Republicans supporting it.

Worried by Supreme Court, U.S. House votes to protect contraception

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is exactly why I find the "both sides are equally bad" argument dangerously mistaken. The Democratic Party is deeply flawed and not sufficiently progressive, but the GOP has become a haven for religious and political extremism that chips away at many rights and freedoms or endeavors to do so--including ones that took decades to gain (e.g., same-sex marriage).

Being so entrenched in religious fundamentalism as to support banning contraceptives strikes me as positively theocratic in the extreme.

 

[Stevicus]

This is exactly why I find the "both sides are equally bad" argument dangerously mistaken. The Democratic Party is deeply flawed and not sufficiently progressive, but the GOP has become a haven for religious and political extremism that chips away at many rights and freedoms or endeavors to do so--including ones that took decades to gain (e.g., same-sex marriage).

Being so entrenched in religious fundamentalism as to support banning contraceptives strikes me as positively theocratic in the extreme.

You make some good points, although the argument that "both sides are equally bad" doesn't mean they agree on every issue. However, when it comes to warmongering, predatory capitalism, and a foreign policy rooted in American exceptionalism, both parties are remarkably similar, which makes whatever small differences exist pale in comparison.

The sad thing is, it would be so easy for the Democrats to take the wind out of the GOP's sails if only they'd stop being such shameless toadies of Wall Street corporate interests. So why can't they do that?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is exactly why I find the "both sides are equally bad" argument dangerously mistaken. The Democratic Party is deeply flawed and not sufficiently progressive, but the GOP has become a haven for religious and political extremism that chips away at many rights and freedoms or endeavors to do so--including ones that took decades to gain (e.g., same-sex marriage).

Being so entrenched in religious fundamentalism as to support banning contraceptives strikes me as positively theocratic in the extreme.

I don't think not supporting contraceptives is the reason they voted no, though. I think from what I've heard, their real message is: "The Supreme Court justice that said they'd change the other rules was just one of the 9 judges, we're not worried about it yet, and we're not making rules ahead of time to address a problem that hasn't happened yet."

While I don't agree with the logic I put in parenthesis, it does seem like historically, "the last moment" is how Congress usually decides to act. Even if by that time, damage is already done.

 

[sun rise]

Politically the right just handed the left a loaded weapon to use in the election this year. The campaign ads write themselves.

As far as the substance goes, I take it as a statement of the motives of the right - first abortion, next gay marriage, then contraception and finally replacing the Constitution with the Bible. And along the way, setting up committees of political correctness to tell teachers what to teach.

(There are exceptions on the right but the party itself is going in that direction.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just goes to show how the "freedom" party really only means "freedom for my religion and my religion only." They don't care about anyone except those who shame and embarrass Jesus the most, and because how they treat the least among them is how they treat Jesus himself, they're also the ones who hate him and crap on him more than anyone else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think not supporting contraceptives is the reason they voted no, though. I think from what I've heard, their real message is: "The Supreme Court justice that said they'd change the other rules was just one of the 9 judges, we're not worried about it yet, and we're not making rules ahead of time to address a problem that hasn't happened yet."

While I don't agree with the logic I put in parenthesis, it does seem like historically, "the last moment" is how Congress usually decides to act. Even if by that time, damage is already done.

For a number of reasons I doubt that, one of which is they can just have the SC overturn it.

 

[The Hammer]

You make some good points, although the argument that "both sides are equally bad" doesn't mean they agree on every issue. However, when it comes to warmongering, predatory capitalism, and a foreign policy rooted in American exceptionalism, both parties are remarkably similar, which makes whatever small differences exist pale in comparison.

The sad thing is, it would be so easy for the Democrats to take the wind out of the GOP's sails if only they'd stop being such shameless toadies of Wall Street corporate interests. So why can't they do that?

Because politics is infested with the worst of all evils. Greed and Money.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't think not supporting contraceptives is the reason they voted no, though. I think from what I've heard, their real message is: "The Supreme Court justice that said they'd change the other rules was just one of the 9 judges, we're not worried about it yet, and we're not making rules ahead of time to address a problem that hasn't happened yet."

While I don't agree with the logic I put in parenthesis, it does seem like historically, "the last moment" is how Congress usually decides to act. Even if by that time, damage is already done.

Even if that is true, they had an opportunity to uphold and defend an individual freedom before it was under attack. Not only did they not do this, they took a deliberate act against it. According to the article, a popular retort was religious in nature. That is abhorrent and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even if that is true, they had an opportunity to uphold and defend an individual freedom before it was under attack. Not only did they not do this, they took a deliberate act against it. According to the article, a popular retort was religious in nature. Which is abhorrent and they should be ashamed of themselves.

We should just give them the MidWest and places like Montana where there's more than plenty enough room for them all so they can have their own theocracy and leave us alone, and forget about them when they wall themselves off from the world.

 

[Quetzal]

We should just give them the MidWest and places like Montana where there's more than plenty enough room for them all so they can have their own theocracy and leave us alone, and forget about them when they wall themselves off from the world.

I sometimes joke that when they fired on Sumter we should have just let them go.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I sometimes joke that when they fired on Sumter we should have just let them go.

At times I feel that way, but then I remember the Southerners I've known who were truly wonderful and amazing people.

 

[Kenny]

What. A. Joke.



Worried by Supreme Court, U.S. House votes to protect contraception

This is so weird as to make me wonder exactly what was in the proposed law. I know it is customary to hide things under the banner of something else.

I don't think there is any state that would stop what we understand as contraceptives.

That is just my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is so weird as to make me wonder exactly what was in the proposed law. I know it is customary to hide things under the banner of something else.

I don't think there is any state that would stop what we understand as contraceptives.

That is just my opinion.

They are.
Asked about contraception case, GOP candidates give the wrong answer

But more important was the fact that each of the Michigan Republicans, upon learning about the ruling, expressed their disagreement with the court precedent. Tom Leonard, a former state House speaker, said, “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”

State Rep. Ryan Berman, who used his phone, added, “I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal judicial activism.”

A state-by-state breakdown of how Republicans plan to attack reproductive healthcare

Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has suggested contraceptives should only be available to married couples.

Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for Senator in Arizona, announced that he would only vote for Supreme Court justices who would overturn cases that protect the right to contraceptives. Masters wants access to contraceptives to be a state-level decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception, sidestepping questions about what would happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Idaho lawmakers could restrict emergency contraceptives if Roe overturns

Crane said on Idaho Reports last week that, as chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, he would consider holding hearings on legislation to ban medication abortion and a certain emergency contraceptive.

He said he is concerned about the health effects of abortifacients – drugs that induce abortions. They’re widely considered to be safe and effective.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This is exactly why I find the "both sides are equally bad" argument dangerously mistaken. The Democratic Party is deeply flawed and not sufficiently progressive, but the GOP has become a haven for religious and political extremism that chips away at many rights and freedoms or endeavors to do so--including ones that took decades to gain (e.g., same-sex marriage).

Being so entrenched in religious fundamentalism as to support banning contraceptives strikes me as positively theocratic in the extreme.

Why vote to have more unwanted babies born and more poor and sick people?

 

[Stevicus]

Why vote to have more unwanted babies born and more poor and sick people?

Larger populations make for larger armies.

 

[Quetzal]

Larger populations make for larger armies.

I can't tell if you are joking but super-capitalist Elon Musk made a similar claim about the population in relation to the workforce.

 

[Stevicus]

I can't tell if you are joking but super-capitalist Elon Musk made a similar claim about the population in relation to the workforce.

Well, I guess it's kind of gallows humor sarcasm on my part.

If the government ever starts giving medals to women for having a certain number of children, then that may be another red flag about the direction we're heading.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Larger populations make for larger armies.

The Expendables.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why vote to have more unwanted babies born and more poor and sick people?

Because sex for fun rather than procreation is a sin.
This is something I've heard as a reason by fundies.