The Republican War On Women

[Wry Catcher]

Have you figured out how to articulate what the "war on women" is yet?

I mean, I can say "Obama is a moron", not articulate any reason why he is, then post definitions of denial whenever someone says he isn't.

It's simple logic. You make a claim and YOU support it with examples. Your claim doesn't stand because someone can't prove you wrong. And, it certainly doesn't stand because you keep posting denial information.

I'll wait for someone to articulate something of even minimal substance.

Consider the claim as a hypothesis, and the posts as evidence in its support.

Consider also the posts by those on your side of the aisle who deny climate change or those who call Obama a Marxist, Muslim, or foreign national.

Now, I've been told by Mrs. Catcher that I need to be ready to go shopping. Getting ready means getting my book (I now have a Kindle) so I don't rush her in her quest.

I'll still wait for someone, anyone, to articulate some sort of rationale how this is some "war on women". For those who believe it to be, surely they can say why.

I know I can say why it's a "war on the Constitution", if I were prone to hyperbole, that is.

Enjoy your shopping.

1. "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did nothing to refute the idea that Republicans are waging a "war on women" late last week when he quietly signed three controversial bills that limit access to abortion services and sex education and repealed the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, on the eve of the holiday weekend."
LINK:

Scott Walker Quietly Signs Anti-Abortion Measures, Repeals Equal Pay Act, Ahead of Easter Weekend - International Business Times


2, "ississippi voters will be allowed to decide on a ballot measure that defines "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week. The measure could potentially outlaw abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research across the state."

LINK:

Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control

3. "States offer mixed legislative bag on abortion, birth control"


LINK: States offer mixed legislative bag on abortion, birth control

4. LOTS to read here.

LINK:

Guttmacher Institute State Update: Legislation Enacted

 

[kaz]

When will you people stop digging?

*Sheesh!!*

You just keep trying this sad pathetic move because we got the hot women and you got the sluts...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since Obama Took Office, The Unemployment Rate For Women Has Increased From 7.0 Percent To 8.1 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

Since The Stimulus Was Passed, The Unemployment Rate For Women Has Increased From 7.3 Percent To 8.1 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

Since Obama Took Office, The Number Of Female Employees Has Declined By 683,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

Since Obama Took Office, The Number Of Women Unemployed Has Increased From 5,005,000 To 5,863,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)
In March, The Number Of Women Employed Fell By 82,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

The Female Labor Force Participation Rate Fell In March From 57.9 Percent To 57.7 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

The Number Of Women Not In The Labor Force In March Increased From 52.8 Million To 53.1 Million. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

“The Poverty Rate Among Women Rose To 14.5 Percent Last Year, Up From 13.9 Percent In 2009—The Highest Rate In 17 Years.” (Leslie Bennetts, “Women: The Invisible Poor,” The Daily Beast, 9/14/11)

The Extreme Poverty Rate – Income Below Half Of Federal Poverty Line – Is The Highest Ever Recorded Among Women. “The ‘extreme poverty rate’ among women was the highest ever recorded, climbing to 6.3 percent in 2010 from 5.9 percent in 2009. ‘Extreme poverty’ means that your income is below half of the federal poverty line—and by 2010, more than 7.5 million women had fallen into that dire category.” (Leslie Bennetts, “Women: The Invisible Poor,” The Daily Beast, 9/14/11)

In 2010, 17 Million Women Lived In Poverty, Compared To 12.6 Million Men. “What all those statistics add up to is that more than 17 million women were living in poverty last year, compared with 12.6 million men. As usual, things were worse for older women; twice as many women over 65 were living in poverty, compared with men.” (Leslie Bennetts, “Women: The Invisible Poor,” The Daily Beast, 9/14/11)

The Poverty Rate Is 25.6 Percent For Black Women And 25 Percent For Hispanic Women. “And those numbers just represented the population-wide average. For Hispanic and black women, the poverty rate increased even faster and rose higher—to 25 percent for Hispanic women and to 25.6 percent for black women.” (Leslie Bennetts, “Women: The Invisible Poor,” The Daily Beast, 9/14/11)

More Than 40 Percent Of Single Mothers Live In Poverty. “As usual, single mothers are having the hardest time of all. More than 40 percent of women who head families are now living in poverty. With more than half of poor children living in female-headed families in 2010, the child poverty rate jumped to 22 percent.” (Leslie Bennetts, “Women: The Invisible Poor,” The Daily Beast, 9/14/11)

I would think you would be able to spin your highly partisan opinion much more effectively. Your 'argument' is laughable, posting statistics without context is insipid, and when the stats have no bearing on the issue at hand they convince only the dumbest partisans (do you really need to pander to the echo chamber?) that you posted something of substance.

1.Context?

con·text/ˈkäntekst/
Noun:
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

2. Did you note the title of the thread?
If so, the very first words of my post are "Since Obama Took Office, The Unemployment Rate For Women...," a clear rebuttal to the OP.

3. Are you suggesting that you don't see the connection...and therefore the context?

4. "Your 'argument' is laughable..."
I doubt it. Your suggestions that you don't see the context...and that you are laughing are both patently false.
You are not laughing. You are seeking some way of pretending to ignore the abject failures of the Obama administration.
True?

5. The statistics, and the dates of same, document that, rather than the GOP...the Democrats, if anyone, have damaged the distaff branch of society.
Also true?


Now, once you admit the truth of #4 and #5 above, you will be free to leave the darkside, and come across the aisle....
.....we have cookies.

Nice try. The context - which shouldn't need to be explicitly stated - is based on new efforts by several states to make life more difficult for women who choose to end their pregnancy, by states to designate personhood beginning at conception and by some who consider the use of contraception some sort of abortion (see my posts above, with links). But you know all that and that is why you changed the debate to attack Obama.

The OP is about the GOP's War on Women's health, it has nothing to do with employment (and BTW, a credible argument can be advanced that causes for more women being out of work is 1) because men are out of work too, and 2) unemployment is a direct result of the Republican Administration which preceded Obama's).

 

[kwc57]

I would think you would be able to spin your highly partisan opinion much more effectively. Your 'argument' is laughable, posting statistics without context is insipid, and when the stats have no bearing on the issue at hand they convince only the dumbest partisans (do you really need to pander to the echo chamber?) that you posted something of substance.

1.Context?

con·text/ˈkäntekst/
Noun:
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

2. Did you note the title of the thread?
If so, the very first words of my post are "Since Obama Took Office, The Unemployment Rate For Women...," a clear rebuttal to the OP.

3. Are you suggesting that you don't see the connection...and therefore the context?

4. "Your 'argument' is laughable..."
I doubt it. Your suggestions that you don't see the context...and that you are laughing are both patently false.
You are not laughing. You are seeking some way of pretending to ignore the abject failures of the Obama administration.
True?

5. The statistics, and the dates of same, document that, rather than the GOP...the Democrats, if anyone, have damaged the distaff branch of society.
Also true?


Now, once you admit the truth of #4 and #5 above, you will be free to leave the darkside, and come across the aisle....
.....we have cookies.

Nice try. The context - which shouldn't need to be explicitly stated - is based on new efforts by several states to make life more difficult for women who choose to end their pregnancy, by states to designate personhood beginning at conception and by some who consider the use of contraception some sort of abortion (see my posts above, with links). But you know all that and that is why you changed the debate to attack Obama.

The OP is about the GOP's War on Women's health, it has nothing to do with employment (and BTW, a credible argument can be advanced that causes for more women being out of work is 1) because men are out of work too, and 2) unemployment is a direct result of the Republican Administration which preceded Obama's).

One person's war on women is another person's war on murder.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1.Context?

con·text/ˈkäntekst/
Noun:
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

2. Did you note the title of the thread?
If so, the very first words of my post are "Since Obama Took Office, The Unemployment Rate For Women...," a clear rebuttal to the OP.

3. Are you suggesting that you don't see the connection...and therefore the context?

4. "Your 'argument' is laughable..."
I doubt it. Your suggestions that you don't see the context...and that you are laughing are both patently false.
You are not laughing. You are seeking some way of pretending to ignore the abject failures of the Obama administration.
True?

5. The statistics, and the dates of same, document that, rather than the GOP...the Democrats, if anyone, have damaged the distaff branch of society.
Also true?


Now, once you admit the truth of #4 and #5 above, you will be free to leave the darkside, and come across the aisle....
.....we have cookies.

Nice try. The context - which shouldn't need to be explicitly stated - is based on new efforts by several states to make life more difficult for women who choose to end their pregnancy, by states to designate personhood beginning at conception and by some who consider the use of contraception some sort of abortion (see my posts above, with links). But you know all that and that is why you changed the debate to attack Obama.

The OP is about the GOP's War on Women's health, it has nothing to do with employment (and BTW, a credible argument can be advanced that causes for more women being out of work is 1) because men are out of work too, and 2) unemployment is a direct result of the Republican Administration which preceded Obama's).

One person's war on women is another person's war on murder.

How 'profound', profoundly ridiculous.

 

[Si modo]

Consider the claim as a hypothesis, and the posts as evidence in its support.

Consider also the posts by those on your side of the aisle who deny climate change or those who call Obama a Marxist, Muslim, or foreign national.

Now, I've been told by Mrs. Catcher that I need to be ready to go shopping. Getting ready means getting my book (I now have a Kindle) so I don't rush her in her quest.

I'll still wait for someone, anyone, to articulate some sort of rationale how this is some "war on women". For those who believe it to be, surely they can say why.

I know I can say why it's a "war on the Constitution", if I were prone to hyperbole, that is.

Enjoy your shopping.

1. "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did nothing to refute the idea that Republicans are waging a "war on women" late last week when he quietly signed three controversial bills that limit access to abortion services and sex education and repealed the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, on the eve of the holiday weekend."
LINK:

Scott Walker Quietly Signs Anti-Abortion Measures, Repeals Equal Pay Act, Ahead of Easter Weekend - International Business Times


2, "ississippi voters will be allowed to decide on a ballot measure that defines "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week. The measure could potentially outlaw abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research across the state."

LINK:

Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control

3. "States offer mixed legislative bag on abortion, birth control"


LINK: States offer mixed legislative bag on abortion, birth control

4. LOTS to read here.

LINK:

Guttmacher Institute State Update: Legislation Enacted

1. The bill disallows state funded elective abortions, as it should.

Obamacare does too.

What's the problem?

2. Mississippi is having a referendum vote on whether the state will allow abortions or not.

So what? If the people of Mississippi don't want abortions in their state, that is perfectly within their right, as guaranteed in the Constitution.

I don't live in Mississippi. Neither I nor you can tell them what to do in this matter. And, if it ends up being unconstitutional, there is a remedy for that.

I really couldn't care less what Mississippi does in that matter. And funny...the Constitution allows them to do that.

If you have issues with the Constitution, you should ask your congressman to propose an Amendment.

3. I already read that. No evidence of some "war on women" in that.







Again, where's the "war on women"?

I'm finding more and more that the persons who make such a claim, really have issues with the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

The last big White House dinner was thrown for the British Prime-minister.

Many of the attendees wanted everyone to know that they love women.

"Christians and supporters of heterosexual-marriage really creep us out and we feel they and the GOP are conducting an all out war against women in America."

 

[MarcATL]

When will you people stop digging?

*Sheesh!!*

My biggest fan...

This one just wanted an excuse to neg me...

Hi, you have received -775 reputation points from Si modo.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Negged for whining about a neg.

Regards,
Si modo

Note: This is an automated message.

No big deal.

You people think your negs will stop me from exposing your pettiness and silliness...

Hi, you have received -998 reputation points from Si modo.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Negged for whining about a neg.

Regards,
Si modo

Note: This is an automated message.

No..

 

[Dick Tuck]

Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator To Criticize GOP’s War On Women

“It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon. “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

 

[Si modo]

Thomas Jefferson on separation of church and state:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When will you people stop digging?

*Sheesh!!*

When you guys want to pass laws requiring a women to carry a dead baby to term against her will we can only wonder what the fucks is wrong with you.

 

[Si modo]

When will you people stop digging?

*Sheesh!!*

When you guys want to pass laws requiring a women to carry a dead baby to term against her will we can only wonder what the fucks is wrong with you.

(Marc agrees with you that we should keep passing unconstitutional laws.)

 

[jgarden]

April 9, 2012

Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers. But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.

You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.

(Wisconsin State Senator Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort to repeal Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women’s groups.)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...nsin-state-senator-money-less-important-wome/

- in two-thirds of American families, women are either primary or co-breadwinners,

- women still earn less than their male counterparts in all 50 states

- in 2009, Wisconsin ranked 36th in the nation with respect to workplace gender parity

In an election year, the repeal of Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act by Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans is another clear indication that there is a "Republican War On Women." .

The recent "You could argue that money is more important for men" comment by Wisconsin GOP State Senator Sen. Glenn Grothman is already receiving national attention and has placed another huge political "albatross" around Romney's neck!

 

[mudwhistle]

Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator To Criticize GOP’s War On Women

“It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon. “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

Yes.......the RINO from Alaska thinks the GOP is conducting war on women.


Nothing to see here.

 

[BDBoop]

Funny, nobody is addressing the WI law Walker just signed, making women have no recourse for not receiving pay equal to her male counterparts. President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act back in January of 2009, but employers in WI can ignore said Act.

 

[Si modo]

Funny, nobody is addressing the WI law Walker just signed, making women have no recourse for not receiving pay equal to her male counterparts. President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act back in January of 2009, but employers in WI can ignore said Act.

Link to the bill, please.

I'll decide for myself what it does.

 

[BDBoop]

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.181 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Si modo]

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.181 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No dear...the link to the WI bill.

Not the Ledbetter.

 

[BDBoop]

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.181 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No dear...the link to the WI bill.

Not the Ledbetter.

Found problem, fixed. Sorry.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb202

 

[Si modo]

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.181 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No dear...the link to the WI bill.

Not the Ledbetter.

Found problem, fixed. Sorry.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb202

Thanks. I'll take a look.