Conservatives like Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, attempting to do damage control, told millions that women don’t care about contraception. She appeared on The View and said not only were women not interested in contraception, they were interested in jobs and the economy and raising their families.
What planet did Haley and yes, Mitt Romney, fly in from? Romney is spouting the same nonsense. Contraception is a real basic to jobs, the economy and kids. Unless women can control their own reproduction, they have limited options when dealing with getting a good job, an education and raising kids. Unless Republicans back off and stop minimizing the importance of having safe, reliable contraception, they will lag at least 10 points behind with the women vote. No one likes being dismissed or told what they consider important.
Nikki Haley should know better. Most middle class women can take care of their own contraception. However, just about everyone can look back to a day when $50 bucks was a BFD. Young women are often short of cash and take unnecessary risks when short on money. They also know that women who aren’t middle class don’t have the luxury (and very often the transportation) to travel around looking for affordable contraception. They know unplanned pregnancy keeps women in poverty. Pissing off one demographic pretty much includes everyone.
Teen pregnancy costs this country 7 billion dollars annually. Women (and also men) had better be interested in contraception. It is a matter of national financial well-being. It breaks the cycle of poverty like nothing else.
Time for the stupid talk to stop and time for reality to set in. It might be too late for the Republicans however.
Well, the whole idea here is to use any argument whatsoever to shift the focus off of Obama’s record and the state of the country for the upcoming election. The left is absolutely desperate for people not to focus on the national debt spiraling out of control, the next wave of home foreclosures coming, the fact that on the ground, people are still losing their jobs (Yahoo) no matter how the Unemployment numbers are massaged and manipulated to show improvement. These are just a couple of the hundreds of issues (Gas Prices, inability to pass a budget, etc, etc) that the left has to divert people’s attention away from. And they’re doing it by appealing to the emotionally vulnerable with absolutely ridiculous contraception scenarios. The only thing the Republicans did wrong here is let themselves get pulled into the trap.
People have on the pill and buying rubbers for decades before this crazy conversation. This is all a distraction for those who can be easily distracted. That being said, it just might work!!
No, the whole idea here is to stop politically effing with contraception and making it an issue.
Where is your candidate you have been threatening us with since 2008? Is the clown parade over yet? Give me a break.
The Republicans did it to themselves because they lack the self control to stay out of other people’s value systems.
Oh dear God, no one has said “rubbers” in 50 years. 🙄
You really don’t get it. Do you know how many women can’t afford reliable contraception? How about teenagers?
Scenario: Susie lives in Tappahannock, Virginia. She is sexually active with her boyfriend. There is no Planned Parenthood for 60 miles. She can’t go to the local clinic. Talk spreads through small towns like wild fire. Its not just money, its access and clinic access to get the rx.
Kids often don’t have money. Poor women don’t have money. Pills are expensive if you have no money. Most people don’t live around Planned Parenthood. They are mostly in urban areas.
Teen pregnancy costs this country $7 Billion dollars a year.
Now I’m agreeing with you on the last statement. Take VA for example. The ultrasound thing should have been WAY down the list of priorities after thousands and thousands of fiscal waste issues. But Republicans just can’t help themselves, can they?
Second statement…Huh? The candidate is right there…you can’t see him? If you need help, his name is Mitt Romney (or as I like call him, Mitt-for-Brains Romney)
@Pokie,
I am laughing now…mitt for brains. Bwaaahahahahahaha
That’s the point. No one seems to like him. I probably like him more than you do.
I don’t know how much fiscal waste is plaguing VA. I guess I will never know. I do know there were issues far more important than ultra-sound. Something must be done about transportation.
Frankly, if I were king, I would put contraception in the drinking water in high schools. Teen pregnancy costs us a fortune.
Well, I like Mitt-for-Brains better than McCain. But man, that isn’t saying much, is it? To me, it’s a simple matter of whether we’re on a rocket sled to destruction (Obama), or a slow-moving Tank (Romney) to destruction. Neither one of them is going to do the right thing. But in the end, I firmly believe we do get the government we deserve.
George Carlin described our political leaders best when he said: “This is the best we can do.”
Didn’t we hear this same song back in the 80s with Reagan? I think it ended up still working out for him in the end.
Not really. I sure don’t remember Reagan going on an anti-contraception rant. Reagan was pro-choice when he was governor of California.
I thought he was against the Women’s Right Amendment and pro-women forces were against him and he still won.
But, this is before my time so I may be talking out of turn.
@marin, I just did some research and I think Reagan’s more agressive push against abortion came during his second term. I don’t think he ever did anything specific against contraception. I tried to find something and couldn’t.
Not defending Reagan here. I also wasn’t the most attentive presidential watcher back in those days so if you can send specifics, I will stand corrected.
I sort of got fixated on Robert Bork. After the situation heated up, Reagan’s endorsement of him was only tepid.
In 1981 Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. She is a far cry from Bork and Kennedy.
Not making the point on contraceptives but on the ‘woman problem’. I don’t think they vote as a block (that’s why I brought up Reagan as an example) because women are independent. Contraceptives could be a single issue for them and they’ll vote for or against a candidate solely on that. I just don’t see a lot of women doing that.
I think as Haley pointed out that they’re more focused (again as a block) on the more important issues of the day. If you don’t have a job and can’t make your mortgage payment the lack of contraceptives is way down on the totem pole in terms of what’s important.
So, I just see this issue as – for those inclined not to vote Republican this is just another issue that reinforces that view. For those inclined to vote Republican this may give you pause but it then boils down to — is this is a single issue for that individual or is it something that they can allow to slide because the ideology of the other candidate just won’t fit……
@marin, you refuse to hear what I am saying. Contraception is an economic issue.
More importantly, the Republicans haven’t just taken a shot at contraception. It is an entire smorgasbord of various assaults on reproductive rights.
Will all women vote that way? No, of course not. Will many women evaluate what has been said by many different candidates? You had better believe it.
Your very tone is dismissive. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the polls. Radical Republicans have sold their entire party out as has the tea party.
Women had no economic security or power until they were in a position to control their own reproduction.
If you can’t get a job because you don’t have child care you aren’t going to make your mortgage payment either.
I am stopping one step short of using the W word. It really doesn’t have all that much to do with ideology.
You are making the mistake that many other Republicans have made…thinking they know what is important to women and what women think and what women should do.
The party faithful will vote along party lines. It is the great sea of Independents you need to worry about.
I forgot all about little Susie in Tappahannock, VA. Let’s see….first off, there is a decision involved here for little Susie to get pregnant, and very often, poor people are poor for a reason. Second, I posit that you could spread taxpayer-funded “throbbin’ hoods” (there, not rubbers) everywhere, and little susie would still wind up preggers 5 times out of 10.
@pokie
Poor people are poor for a reason. Hmmmm….yea, there are lots of reasons. One of the reasons is teen pregnancy. It cuts off education and ability to earn a living. The fewer poor people we have, the better off society in general will be.
If you are saying that there are poor people because some people are just lazy trash…I am going to agree with you. However, not all poor people are lazy trash. I have actually known a lot of poor people. Very often being poor is the impetous to rise up out of that poverty. Sometimes it is one kid, sometimes all the kids. Most people don’t like being poor. The way to not rise out of poverty is to have an unwanted pregnancy too early. You can’t get an education, you can’t go to work.
The point of Little Susie living in Tappahannock geographical. It pretty much is an hour way from urban areas. It doesn’t matter if Susie is middle class or poor. If she is a kid, she is has very few options.
“@marin, you refuse to hear what I am saying. Contraception is an economic issue.”
I agree to the extent that a woman, man or family unit pays for it without my assistance. To the extent that an employer pays for it or does not that’s their economic decision.
‘You are making the mistake that many other Republicans have made…thinking they know what is important to women and what women think and what women should do.”
I reserve no judgment for a woman, man or family unit that wants to use contraceptives. That’s their choice. That family unit just has to find a way to pay for it. A company or the government should not be obligated to provide that service.
marin, Unwanted teen pregnancy is costing us $7 BILLION dollars a year. Does that not concern you? That is just teens, not all unwanted pregnancy. That is no small chunk of change.
You have a vested interest in seeing that those who want contraception have it. It is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for births and raising kids until age 18.
let’s not downplay all of this into simply contraception. There has been one assault after the other on reproductive rights.
Finally, when you get right down to it, you don’t have a line item veto on what you will pay for and what you won’t. Bujt that isn’t the point I am making. The point, once again, is that radical Republicans have shot themselves in the foot with many women. They have made the Republican ticket glow in the dark…as in Kryptonite because of the woman issues.
its hard to say which is more important–the privacy issue or the economic issue.
Even ultra sound is an economic issue. many Republicans are more than willing to mandate that a woman undergo an unnecessary ultra-sound before an abortion. Those a-holes voted down paying for it. They are perfectly willing to mandate that women pay for something they don’t want or need, all awhile the state is suing the feds over health care because people are being forced to buy something they don’t want or need.
This hypocrisy doesn’t resonate well with women.
“Does that not concern you?”
Not really. US birth rates are down and we need future workers to maintain our growing elderly class. The only thing keeping us afloat is immigration. Otherwise we’d have a reverse birth rate today.
“You have a vested interest in seeing that those who want contraception have it. It is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for births and raising kids until age 18. ”
I have a vested interest in making sure that every person is a fine, strong, intelligent person and future worker and taxpayer. But, govt should not involve itself – one way or the other – in the private affair of reproduction. We could go as far to say that govt should not be involved in care of those children after birth and care should be a responsibility shared between parents, charities and/or faith based organizations.
“Finally, when you get right down to it, you don’t have a line item veto on what you will pay for and what you won’t.”
Correct. But as a pro-choicer I oppose this. If you can’t convince a pro-choicer how do you make the case to others? Those that are inclined to side with you are put off by this idea that we must FORCE churches or business to comply.
The State has more power than the Federales. While I don’t agree with RomneyCare I don’t have a constitutional issue with it. Under the Tenth they (MA) have that power.
“This hypocrisy doesn’t resonate well with women.”
Maybe. It may poll well but those same teenagers that get pregnant and can’t afford it aren’t likely to vote anyways..
The gender gap in 12 swing states is 18 points. That is huge.
There is no more mileage in the overly discussed church debate. Most people believe if you are functioning as a business, act like a business.
There are birth rates and there are birth rates. You don’t want just your poor people having kids. I don’t care what you or I want to do, things are set in concrete that the govt. does for those who cannot do for themselves.
What you need from birth rates are productive birth rates, not consumer birth rates. You want kids born into families who are able to support and educate their children. Those who aren’t are a drain.
Marin, it really is easier to prevent than to pay for poverty. We all share a responsibility because we are all paying. No civilized government allows people to die on the street–not in 2012. Keep thinking that the States have more power than the federal govt. While you are doing it, let me suggest a few battlefields that tell a different story. Start out here in Manassas and work your way on around the state. Hit Antiedem and then Gettysburg, then head down to New Orleans …you get my drift. The South isn’t going to rise again, no matter how many good ole boys wish it so.
As for the teenage girls getting pregnant, you really aren’t that clueless. Women understand that much of this ‘war on women’ ultimately has an economic impact. Women aren’t going to vote for people who want to strip them of economic power. Women can connect the dots that say if Susie gets pregnant because she doesn’t have access to contraception, she will cost the state and country money helping her raise her child. Women understand that they are the state and the country.
@marin $7 BILLION should concern you. That is in one year. If it doesn’t then I don’t know why I am wasting my breath. You need a touch more of reality and a lot less libertarian websites.
OK, so the whole thread is based on a “war on women” that is a total creation of the looney left and the Obama-slave media, and Marin needs reality? I see.
Pokie, you can deny whatever you want. Start counting the votes. Numbers talk. You can even call them looney left numbers if you want.
It has been one thing after another: Aspirin between the knees, ultra-sounds, mini hospital abortion clinics, its ok for states to outlaw abortion, Fluke is a slut, defund planned parenthood, the list goes on and on and on. Your buddies shot themselves in the foot trying to be all big and bad for their base. The Independents want none of that crap. The Loony Left wasn’t going to support your fair hair GOP boys anyway.
yes, marin needs a reality check. It’s cheaper to make sure everyone has birth control, especially teens and poor women than it is to pay for children who will need government assistance from birth to age 18. Women understand this. That’s why many are turning their backs on the radical element of the GOP. $7 billion dollars is 7 billion dollars. That is an annual cost.
These are some of the things that continue to run up the national debt and stress schools, health care and other social institutions. Social assistance is here to stay and will not go away. It is part of the American culture. The fewer people on the social assistance hamster wheel, the better.
What names shall I affix to people who think like you pokie?
It’s a long time before the election. There will likely be multiple swings among various subgroups of the electorate between now and November. It is doubtful that the current gender gap is permanent as the national presidential campaign has not even started yet. Moreover most women are smart enough to realize that candidates at the national level have very little influence with local and state issues.
Ya think? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its probably a duck. Perhaps you didn’t notice but what was happening nationally was also happening right here in Virginia. I grant you , it was hard to tell the attacks apart.
We are a long way from the election for sure. However, that gives Republicans time enough to just admit that the war on women has ended. They can even prove it here in Virginia by repealing several of their most restrict laws passed during this past GA.
A few decades ago I used to fall for those old “little influence” arguments. Not so much any more. Every time I go against by better judgement and give someone a chance, they vote for some repressive bill. NO more. Cut both arms off if I am even tempted.
Well, most people call us “correct”
I am certain SOME people do call you correct. Where are you guys hiding out these days?
I don’t follow. I’m about to go downtown again for a few months, like I was doing last year….but I’m not sure that’s what you’re asking.
@pokie, I was being snarky…like where is the secret club hiding. You are going to be commuting. Ugh. Is this an annual thing?
What a bunch of blather from the menfolk. First of all, we know that all the recent polling data clearly show women are turned off in disporportionate numbers to the republican party. Let me add, the moderate conservative women I know are disgusted by the recent focus of the republican party on women and their vagina’s/wombs.
It isn’t my imagination, it isn’t the imagination of the women I know how voted republican but are now questioning their current presidential options. I would also add, for the women I know who live in VA, it is also the govenor they can’t stand.
Gov. Ultra Sound brought that on himself with me. I actually was fairly neutral about him for a long time. In fact, I might have even given him a C+.
“First of all, we know that all the recent polling data clearly show women are turned off in disporportionate numbers to the republican party.”
Then lets see the turn-out. Lets see 100% of women.. women standing side by side in solidarity.. let us hear you all ROAR!
Lets see how the female electorate votes. I don’t think it’ll be anywhere near 100%………….
No one claimed 100%. Don’t start spinning on something that wasn’t said. You will see the result of the disrespect that has been shown this fall.
We don’t need to roar and we don’t need to carry guns. We vote.
Follow-up to above post.
For those women that vote “anti-women” – because this is a “war on women” are they traitors? Gender-traitors?
Do they die the death of a traitor?
BTW, one of my favorite lines from “The Patriot”..
The majority of African-Americans vote Democratic. The majority of Hispanics vote Democratic. The majority of women will vote Democratic. For some of these groups the Republican party would be a good fit except that it has gone out of its way to alienate them. Many people are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Many people are socially conservative but dislike the rhetoric on immigration. It appears that Republicans haven’t done their homework. It won’t matter if a few individuals in these groups are dragged out and shown as “examples” if the platform, rhetoric, and representation turns the majority off.
Trying to say that all women do such-and-such is as offensive as saying all Hispanics do so-and-so.
Censored,
Then it’s clearly not a “war on women”.
Then exactly what would you call the recent legislative onslaught that has mandated what women will and won’t do reproductively?
@marinm
It could be an indifference to issues of importance to women or an affront to their intelligence or stupidity in choosing to promote a particular agenda. You can choose “war”, “stupid move”, “regressive fantasy”, or any other term of your choice. The Republican brand is offensive right now. Not only that but it shows a lack of understanding that there is a connection between these regressive social issues and the economic ones.
@Censored,
It must be some sort of genetic thing. Why is it that males still feel they can tell us what the score is when it is our gender under assault.
I will call it anything i want to call it. I know I don’t like it and I know I am not going to tolerate it. War on women pretty much tells me what it feels like.
When it is headed at you men, then you get to name it. When it is headed at me, I call it.
“Then exactly what would you call the recent legislative onslaught that has mandated what women will and won’t do reproductively?”
Counter productive
“The Republican brand is offensive right now.”
I don’t altogether disagree with you but I see the Democratic party equally, if not more so, repulsive.
The Democrats aren’t trying to take anything away from me.
It is always the REpublicans who want to regulate something or take something away. That’s my problem with them.
Now the Republicans are taxing me more because of Amazon.com. Another gotcha.
The Republicans are chopping on VRS. Not mine but someone’s.
“The Democrats aren’t trying to take anything away from me.”
Sure they are. A few loud mouths in Congress are delving deeply into the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws and want to intrude upon state laws by banning those laws.
Here is a website from the FAR left to explain a few cases where women were impacted and may again be impacted if we diminish those laws.
http://archive.truthout.org/decriminalizing-self-defense-victoria-law-resisting-gender-violence-outside-prison-industrial-comple
And I won’t even argue the whole democrats-want-to-raise-taxes-to-pay-for-every-social-program-they-can-think-of-because-theyre-scared-of-faith-based-groups-doing-it angle.
“It is always the REpublicans who want to regulate something or take something away. That’s my problem with them.”
I have the same issue with both parties. I see both parties as guilty in this. You don’t? Really? The Dems are squeaky clean on this one?
@marin, at various points in history, short and long range I would agree with you somewhat. Howver, I said they weren’t trying to take anything away from me and I meant currently. Collectively, the Dems just aren’t trying to take anything from me or regulate anything that I feel shouldn’t be regulated.
Taxes? The only people who are raising my taxes are Virginia Republicans because of Amazon.com I sm not a !% so I can’t blame them for that. I honestly don’t know what they are trying to take from me.