Only in the backwards, warped and ignorant minds of righteous right-wing morons could the act of encouraging people to be sexually responsible be interpreted as a call for uncontrolled sexual behavior. Once again, the Obama administration proposes common-sense policies and in typical fashion, the right-wing knee-jerks in opposition.
While the debt ceiling circus act drew all the headlines, the Health and Human Services announced that health insurers will be required to cover contraception and other reproductive care services without the additional cost of co-pays. The services included in the new regulation include:
– well-woman visits;
– screening for gestational diabetes;
– human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
– sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
– human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
– FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
– breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
– domestic violence screening and counseling.
The regulations were created in part to aid low-income women in matters of health and reduce the number of abortions by making contraceptives more easily available. Pro-life anti-choice groups should be applauding the measure but instead we get the same predictable hysteria.
Greg Gutfeld (your typical Fox wingnut):
If you’re talking about free birth control, who’s going to use free birth control? The people who can’t afford it. So the left has figured out a way to eradicate the poor, and it’s by eradicating the poor!
Yeah, right. Suddenly people like Gutfeld and the clowns at Fox are concerned about the poor. And check out this bit of hysteria from Family PAC VP Sandy Rios:
– “Is the White House out of their mind? Does the West Wing not know what the left wing is doing? We’re $14 trillion in debt and now we’re going to cover birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?”
– “Why in the world would you encourage your daughters, and your granddaughters, and whoever else comes behind you to have unrestricted, unlimited sex anytime, anywhere and that, somehow if you prevent pregnancy, that somehow you’ve helped them. I would submit to you that uncontrolled sexual behavior is what is harming our girls, not our lack of birth control — which by the way they don’t seem interested in taking anyway. Having a baby is not the worst thing. I think having multiple sex partners without any kind of restraint or responsibility is much more damning, why would you support that?”
– “In Red China, they have this down to a science. The local health care centers make women come in every month to be examined to see if they’ve had their cycle to make sure they are taking their medication and if they have a baby they are roundly punished, if they have an extra baby that baby is aborted. That is the control we’re moving toward.”
Rios equates women’s health issues with receiving pedicures and manicures. When it was pointed out to her that she was doing little more than putting ideology over public health, Rios replied, “Yes, I suppose I do.”
But as ridiculous as Rios arguments may be, they are nothing compared to those of Iowa Rep. Steve King who views the new measures as the beginning of the end of civilization. Really, he does.
We have people that are single, we have people that are past reproductive age, we have priests that are celibate. All of them, paying insurance premiums that cover contraceptives so that somebody else doesn’t have to pay the full fare of that? And they’ve called it preventative medicine. Preventative medicine. Well if you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.
I’m not quite sure what one does with demagoguery and nonsense of this sort but I will pose this question of Mr. King. He is a social conservative, a Roman Catholic, married and has three children. He is opposed to contraceptives (“preventing babies from being born…is not constructive to our culture and our civilization”). From all this we can surmise that Mr. and Mrs. King do not use contraceptives of any sort (including condoms), which means that…
a) Mr. and Mrs. King have engaged in sexual intercourse a total of three times in their marriage.
or…
b) They engaged in sexual intercourse a number of times but had their encounters timed perfectly so as to prevent all but three pregnancies. Nice work, Stevie.
or…
c) after the first three pregnancies, King mysteriously started shooting blanks. (an act of God perhaps?)
or…
d) King is a moronic, lying hypocrite.
Take your pick but I’m going with d).
If there is a “dying civilization” phenomena in progress, it is more likely that it is due to extreme, holier-than-thou nutjobs like King, Rios and other social conservatives who feel they have every right to sit at the edge of your bed and dictate not only to whom you should be allowed to make love to but in which fashion you do so. F**k them.
UPDATE:
Catch Stephen Colbert’s take on this. Hilarious.
.
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook and Twitter.
.
If all the self-righteous sex-hating hypocrites like Rios and King were laid end-to-end, it’s the best thing that could happen to them.
They’ve become unhinged, there’s no other explanation for it. They’ve lost complete use of whatever mechanism humans possess which prevents them from making fools of themselves. I do believe the mechanism is often referred to as a brain.
Mr. King is concerned about his insurance premiums helping cover the costs of my birth control pills. I wonder if he is as concerned about my insurance premiums being used to cover the cost of his prostate examination?
King has always been an idiot. It is as if his ability to reason is broken and he doesn’t know it. I wonder if his health care policy covers meds for that? I wouldn’t mind paying my share for that.
you know, if these fools would just go on and proudly fly their freak flags…cause we all know that is what they really, really, really want to do….they’d be a whole lot happier. and so would the rest of the country, because then these freaks could stop obsessing over what the rest of us may or may not be doing.
Bravo Mario! I think for your choices on Rep. King, I choose the latter.
Only in the backwards, warped and ignorant minds of righteous right-wing morons could the act of encouraging people to be sexually responsible be interpreted as a call for uncontrolled sexual behavior. Once again, the Obama administration proposes common-sense policies and in typical fashion, the right-wing knee-jerks in opposition.
And so, what else can one expect of the least educated and most easily led segment of our population? There are 55 million people claiming to be some degree of Conservative or another. When you look at all the other political and religious ideologies out there in America and the world, the Conservative doesn’t look like much more than a fly speck on an elephant leg as far as either significance or importance is concerned. So who cares what they pretend to think because “Pretend to think” is the best they are ever going to do. http://thelimingview.blogspot.com/
What’s really surprising about King is not that he only hase three children, but that there’s a woman who actually lets him fuck her.
Tonight on Comedy Central Austin Goolsby said that he was leaving DC because……….wait for it… because many of the people in DC do not have their trays put away and their seats in the upright and locked position. Nope not to spend more time with his family, but to get away from the nutbars in the nation’s capitol ;) ( I paraphrase, but carefully)
I’m quickly getting to the point where they can have everything south of the Mason Dixon and just leave the rest of us alone.
Let them screw up their own world. At this point I doubt you’ll find too many willing to fight to keep them in the Union.
What a great idea, Diana. They might call it New Dixie and their capitol Patriotville, and elect President Rick Perry, VP Michele Bachmann and Sec of State Sarah Palin. I think the possibilities are almost endless for them. Huckabee might make a good head for the Dept. of Education, if he can sell enough cartoon videos for 7 yr olds about 911 he could pay for private schools for the chosen students. The best part, for us would be the exchange of headaches and heart burn for the constant comic relief watching them from a distance. I wouldn’t mind paying for that border fence, but on the other hand they would probably be willing to build the fence to keep us out, now that would be a win win. Yep, I like the idea. Back to the Mason Dixon Line.
Stephen Colber made a great observation last night: “A woman’s health care decisions should be strictly a matter between her minister and her husband”.
Great idea Diana. They’d get all the wealth makers, and you’d get all the wealth takers.
Term limits for everyone and it keeps our reps from getting bored and coming up with stupid crap like this so they can focus on what’s important. Thus reducing the hate and frustration of all. Next week the Left will do something just as stupid, then the right, then the independents will try to start something and round and round we go.
Welcome to America the land of the moral crusaders.
Sorry, Tommy – Warren Buffet & George Soros would stay up north. Now just where is it that they come in on the richest in America list?
Nice try, though.
Feel free to join them. I’m sure you’d be much more comfortable than up here in the cold northern states with us.
I’ve always wondered, how is it that there are bad rich people, and there are good rich people? What makes some rich people, better than other rich people. They all pay the same amount in taxes. I doubt Buffet or Soros write bonus checks to the U.S. Treasury every year. Why do you love a few of them, and speak so sourly about most of them?
How do you know, Tommy, that they aren’t writing personal checks?
Seems a lot of people are trying to help out: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
Rich people like Lloyd Blankfein who said he was doing “God’s work” while feathering their own bank accounts and taking from ours. People who send their lobbyists to D.C. to legally bribe members of both parties to get the tax subsidies, breaks and refunds they want while laying off workers who labored to make them the companies they are. These “greed is good” types who are the real takers in the economy. They use all the public services and infrastructure that helps them enrich themselves and spend millions on lawyers to keep from contributing back to the very country who helped them get rich. And I don’t give a damned what their political affiliations are. These are the ones I have no use for. And at this point, any donations they make wouldn’t change my mind. They’ve hurt way too many people.
I do know Soros and Buffett are donating millions to various groups. Buffett has donated over $1 billion in the past.
And while you’ll claim they shouldn’t be taxed, Tommy – and they are already being taxed lower than they every have been in history — here’s the other side of the equation. These corporations (of which about 11% of the population owns – what was it 65-75% of the assets?) are sitting on $2 trillion in profits — so Tommy, have you seen any of them reducing their prices in order to share that wealth with us?
Your whole theory is that things will cost us less, if they pay less, right? So, Tommy — where’s the love?
I see Citigroup’s lawyers have pulled their 2005 reports on plutonomy. There’s a summary at this site: http://beingzoe.com/542/2010/08/citibank-plutonomy-report-original/
If you want the original reports to read, I have copies of them. If Mario is willing to forward them to you, I’ll send them to him.
You really should read about what they think of us from their perspective.
Fascinating stuff. I’d like to read the reports… but will some Anton Chigurh type character track me down? Oh well, live dangerously they say. Sure, if Mario would be so kind to forward them, I’ll read them.
Here are some more things I think about sometimes.
I wonder who benefits most from a larger government structure?
I wonder, that since big businesses benefit from more government regulations because they restrict competitors from entering their respective industries, why do liberals advocate more regulations? All they do is make the big corporations bigger.
I wonder why liberals demand government to take more of the plutonic wealth and give it to the non-plutonic? It’s just going to come back to the plutonic again anyway. The plutonic own all the big corporations, which own all the companies from which the non-plutonic buy all their stuff.
I wonder who benefits from the conflicts between the left and the right? Arianna Huffington seems to have benefited from it. It would seem Soros has as well. Buffet benefits by buying distressed businesses, which become distressed by a bad economy. I wonder if any of the media giants benefit from the $1,000,000,000.00 needed for Obama’s re-election, an amount necessary because of all the conflicts between the left and right?
I wonder who would benefit most from consistent trade laws between countries? If the U.N. managed to normalize international regulations, wouldn’t that make it easier for big corporations to get bigger?
I wonder, what is the difference between being controlled by the 1% with the wealth, and being controlled by the 1% who would use government?
They’re against sex without consequence. Or at least, since so many have actions that contradict this, they don’t like other people having sex without consequence.
The proof is that if it was really about preventing abortions and encouraging responsible sex, they’d be pushing sex education, testing, contraceptives, and the morning after pill like crazy.
(In case there is anyone still so ignorant, the morning after pill is NOT an abortion pill.)
“Contraceptives drastically change the incentive structure surrounding sex”
Sex has an inherent incentive that is stronger than any possible repercussions.
“The idea that “consequence-free” sex is detrimental to society is arguable.”
It would be a really stupid argument.
“Can the law prevent someone from seeking pleasure to their own detriment if it doesn’t hurt anyone else?”
What detriment?
I honestly don’t care if abortion is right or wrong. No government or religion can exert that kind of control over another person. I’m not arguing about whether or no they should. I’m saying that you literally, cannot gain that kind of control over other people. There will always be a demand for abortions and if you don’t like that then the only rational thing to do is to offer a reasonable alternative in contraception. If you think that you can talk people out of f**king then you should go and try to fight the tide with a spoon, you would have better luck.
Wouldn’t this lead to lower health care costs? We’re already paying for the consequences. A few dollars for contraceptives vs years of medical expenses for a child seems logical to me. It’s still up to the individuals to take advantage of the opportunity. It’s insurance, not a “cause.”
actually no. go take a look for the list of states, how much they send to the Feds and how much they receive. last time i looked the states that received back multiples of dollars sent were mostly red states; and many of them were also south of the line. the ‘wealth takers’ in other words. the reverse was true for those receiving less in funds than sent – the wealth makers, and sharers come to that. If the US ever did fold in half along the M-D line the Federal govt would have quite a bit more money to work with having fewer states on its teat. having fewer blaggers on the government purse is a good thing, right?
and yes the screeching over the policy is insane. it might surprise some that use of the Pill for instance is not always sex related for one (cramps/bleeding come to mind), and for another if it is a bad thing to give contraceptives because it ‘encourages sex’ then surely Viagra should be taken off the market also?
King is a classic example of Ideology over all – not the first time hes said this type of crap and wont be th last..
Tommy,
You assume liberals want more regulation to help make the corporations bigger. I would argue there are Republicans who have advocated for the very things you accuse liberals of.
I can’t speak for the motives of those in Congress (many, I am certain, are suspect). However, the overall liberal view that liberals I know have is that government’s duty is to create a level playing field so that all can prosper. Their duty is to the citizens to protect them from the morality free corporations who have no problem preying on people, our environment or our resources to increase their profits. Rather than thinking long term, the focus of both politicians and corporations has become the next election or the next quarterly report. Because of this, not only is our government broken, but our corporations are broken as well. Rather than plan for long term reinvestment in the country that would help bring us out of this recession, they’re hanging onto profits to keep their quarterly reports in the profit margin. So while the GOP claims it is up to the private sector to create jobs, they won’t. It doesn’t matter now what the regulations are. That has nothing to do with it. It’s all about the next quarterly report.
Both sides benefit from the conflicts — that’s why the media (including Faux News) keeps the conflicts going. Murdoch has gotten very wealthy off it as well.
Sadly, they have gained their wealth at our expense. Facts are facts — they don’t have partisan sides — they are what they are. Manipulating or fabricating facts that don’t exist to suit an ideology, so they can have more viewers or can increase their campaign coffers (you can include Bachmann who sends out a request at every turn for more money), does nothing to resolve the problems facing the country.
What has been done to the political dialogue is that it has been so distorted that no one can agree what a FACT is, so there cannot be a fact based discussion to find resolution or compromise. And, of course, compromise has become a dirty word…though our country thrived for decades with compromise.
Part of the problem with the trade laws is that they are not enforced. In the US, it’s up to the State Department, the Dept of Labor and the Trade Representative to enforce them. Now ask if they have the resources (budget) to do this enforcement. Of course, not. Their budgets were slashed under the Bush administration.
Laws get put on the books to solve problems or provide enforcement and, if the other side doesn’t want them, while they are in power, they slash the enforcement mechanism by slashing the budgets of these departments. This happened to many of the financial regulators during Bush, as well. Under Bush we at one point had — I think it was three — people doing consumer protection on products imported into this country. I don’t know what it is now — but at one time there was a woman who was herself paying to have toys tested for lead and notifying the government when she found them. Damn it — that’s what our government is for! This is just pure insanity.
No one wants the country ruled by the 1% of the wealthy — but those less than 1% that we send to Congress to run our government are supposed to be there to protect the “general welfare” of the population. When they fail to do that, we need to vote them out no matter what party they belong to. I think it’s time to reduce their salaries, and prevent them from using insider knowledge to enrich themselves. And there should ONLY be public financing of campaigns. They should go back to being “public servants.” I think we’d get people who want to serve the people again rather than the wealthy, the multinationals and themselves. And THAT would be a good thing.
Much of what you say I agree with, Diana.
“What has been done to the political dialogue is that it has been so distorted that no one can agree what a FACT is, so there cannot be a fact based discussion to find resolution or compromise.”
My wife and I had this same discussion this morning over coffee. Your words, were her words.
“Part of the problem with the trade laws is that they are not enforced.”
The federal government has the responsibilty to standardize weights and measures. I agree with having a certain level of agreed upon standards, which improves our overall standard of living. It makes the US a better place to live, hence making the demand to live here higher, hence increasing the value of our property. The compromise on this issue lies in the size of the budget, and the level of control the agency welds.
“I think it’s time to reduce their salaries, and prevent them from using insider knowledge to enrich themselves.”
Here’s something I wrote a couple of years ago: Electnonincumbents.org
Thanks for the reports. It will take a while for me to digest them.