PDA

View Full Version : Should MorningAfterPill B Sold In ALL Ladies Rooms



Gayle in MD
06-09-2011, 03:17 AM
Why not?

I think it would be a great idea!!!

What do you think?

G.

pooltchr
06-09-2011, 05:56 AM
Sure. Let's just give easy access to the 14 year old girls...no questions asked!

Steve

sack316
06-09-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not?

I think it would be a great idea!!!

What do you think?

G. </div></div>

Can't say I'm very familiar with how it is distributed now. But sure, if a location wishes to dispense it from their ladies room then why not? It shouldn't be forced or required of establishments to provide it, of course. But if someone chooses to then by all means go ahead.

Sack

Sid_Vicious
06-09-2011, 01:44 PM
To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid

pooltchr
06-09-2011, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

I wonder if Nancy's parents have had similar thoughts! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sure...let's put vending machines in the ladies room....in fact, how about at the locker room in schools...Maybe we need to get the car companies to install a dispenser in the back seat of their cars, just to make it more convenient.

The more babies we can kill off, the better!

(and isn't that what motivated this thread in the first place?)

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-09-2011, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not?

I think it would be a great idea!!!

What do you think?

G. </div></div>

Can't say I'm very familiar with how it is distributed now. But sure, if a location wishes to dispense it from their ladies room then why not? It shouldn't be forced or required of establishments to provide it, of course. But if someone chooses to then by all means go ahead.

Sack </div></div>

Yeah, well you know, it wouldn't be somthing you'd want to make available in family restaurants, but in nightclubs, and dinner clubs? Places where one would find a lot of adult singles???


I wonder, do they still sell prophylactics in men's rooms, in those kinds of places?

G.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I've been reading about how the Christian right, is now trying to
outlaw birth control!!!

Unbelievable!

What's next with these people?

G.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2011, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Martin,
You won't believe this!!!

Pure insanity!</span></span>Personhood USA
Printer-friendly version Send to friend
Alabama Weighs Extreme "Personhood" Laws
Submitted by Brian on April 1, 2011 - 10:08am
As neighboring Mississippi is set to vote on a “personhood” amendment in November, Alabama may have its own personhood debate as a “personhood” amendment and statute have been introduced in the state legislature. Republican legislators in the Alabama legislature have introduced “personhood” laws as both statutes and amendments to the state constitution. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, and the Senate statutory bill already has the support of a majority of state senators.

Personhood laws grant constitutional rights to zygotes and fetuses, and ban abortion without exception, certain forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and the treatment of pregnancy complications such as ectopic pregnancies. The radical anti-choice group Personhood USA along with the Foundation for Moral Law, led by former Alabama state Supreme Court justice and likely presidential candidate Roy Moore, are the main forces behind the state’s personhood legislation. Ben DuPré, the point person for the state’s personhood campaign, is a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University and Regent University School of Law and a former clerk for Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and Moore, and is now an attorney for the Foundation for Moral Law and the head of Personhood Alabama. DuPré likened legal abortion to the dehumanization of black people in America:

The Foundation for Moral Law and Personhood Alabama have announced personhood bills and amendments in the House and the Senate, backed by a large number of supporters.

SB301 is a clear recognition of the personhood rights of all human beings, regardless of their age, size, or location. SB 301 states “The term ‘persons’ as used in the Code of Alabama 1975, shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization or the functional equivalent thereof.”

SB 301 is a statutory change to the Alabama Code, and is sponsored by a staggering 19 of 35 Alabama Senators.



Yesterday HB 405 and HB 409 were filed in the House by Representative John Merrill,a Personhood Statute and Personhood Amendment, respectively. The Personhood Statute and Amendment were backed by 31 co-sponsors.

“It is my belief that this bill will clearly affirm that, under law, an individual becomes a person upon fertilization,” stated Representative Merrill.



DuPré added, “America used to define the meaning of ‘person’ along racial lines; now we draw the line at the womb. Personhood legislation finally gives equal protection of the laws to the unborn as well as the born, and from the first moment of human life



Personhood Law Would Ban Treatment of Life-Threatening Pregnancies
Submitted by Brian on March 16, 2011 - 8:56am
As personhood legislation sprouts up in states like Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and Iowa, the radical anti-choice group Personhood USA also hopes to introduce their extreme (and unconstitutional) legislation in North Dakota. Personhood bills criminalize abortion and certain forms of birth control by granting legal rights to zygotes, declaring it a separate ‘person’ from the mother. Many doctors believe that such legislation would ban in vitro fertilization and prohibit doctors from giving medical assistance to women with serious pregnancy complications like ectopic pregnancies. The AP reports on North Dakota doctors speaking out against the radical legislation in their state:

Doctors told the North Dakota Senate's Judiciary Committee that it could affect couples using in vitro fertilization to try to have a baby as well as women who have complications in early pregnancy that will prevent an embryo from developing into a viable baby. Such complications include an ectopic pregnancy, which happens when a fertilized egg begins growing outside the uterus. The doctors who testified said they did not perform abortions.



Although the measure exempts in vitro fertilization from criminal penalties, it includes language saying that "causing injury to a human being" is not justified.

Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist who works at North Dakota's only in vitro fertilization center, said the bill would make it illegal to do the procedure.

"The process of IVF may result in injury to an embryo," Dahl said. "It is unavoidable."

Dr. Shari Orser, a Bismarck obstetrician and gynecologist, told the committee that most eggs that are fertilized for in vitro fertilization never become viable embryos "and only a small percentage of embryos thought to be viable produce a child."

"To suggest that every embryo is a person is absurd," Orser said.

Orser said the law also would complicate the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Without treatment, a tubal pregnancy can result in serious internal bleeding and death, she said.

Other conditions can result in a fetus developing without kidneys, lungs or a brain, Orser said.

"These diagnoses are often made in the first half of these pregnancies," Orser said. "Should a woman be forced to continue the pregnancy when she knows that her baby will die, or can she be spared the emotional distress and the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term?"

Brian's blog

Iowa Personhood Bill Could Legalize the Murder of Abortion Providers
Submitted by Brian on February 24, 2011 - 8:24am
After the failed attempt in South Dakota to push a bill that would legalize the killing of abortion providers, Iowa is now set to take up legislation with a similar effect. The Iowa State House is weighing both a Personhood bill, which gives legal rights to zygotes by classifying them as separate “persons,” and a bill that expands the right to use deadly force to protect a third party. The Personhood legislation attempts to criminalize abortion and common forms of birth control and has already been approved by a State House subcommittee; Personhood Amendments are also under consideration in Mississippi, North Dakota, and Georgia. Essentially, by declaring that a zygote and a fetus have all of the same legal rights as a “person” while also broadening the legal protections regarding the reasonable use of deadly force, abortion providers could be legally targeted with the rationale of protecting a third party.

Lynda Waddington of The Iowa Independent reports:

Currently, abortion is also settled law in Iowa. But House File 153, sponsored by 28 Republicans, challenges it. Under that bill, the state would be mandated to recognize and protect “life” from the moment of conception until “natural death” with the full force of the law and state and federal constitutions. Essentially, the bill declares that from the moment a male sperm and a female ovum join to create a fertilized egg that a person exists.

House File 7, which has been sponsored by 29 GOP House members, seeks to expand state law regarding use of reasonable force, including deadly force. Current state laws provide that citizens are not required to retreat from their dwelling or place of business if they or a third party are threatened. The proposal would significantly expand this to state that citizens are not required to retreat from “any place at which the person has a right to be present,” and that in such instances, the citizen has the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect himself or a third party from serious injury or death or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



Todd Miler, a criminal defense attorney in Des Moines, agrees that these two bills, when combined, create a situation that could lead to someone claiming the killing of an abortion provider or a family planning worker was reasonable use of deadly force.

“My first thought when I looked at House File 153 was that it was a first step — something that had been put out there as a first step toward a larger political goal. But, when you place it next to House File 7 the potential ramifications are startling,” Miler said.

“[House File 7] explicitly provides that people have a right to defend themselves or others at any place they are legally allowed to be. That would definitely include sidewalks or streets outside of clinics. They could attempt to kill a physician or a clinic worker, and if they did so while believing they were protecting another person, which would be defined under House File 153 as a fetus, then, under this law, they would have the right to do that.”

Tony Perkins Embraces the Extreme Personhood Movement
Submitted by Brian on February 15, 2011 - 1:10pm
The anti-choice campaign to pass “Personhood Amendments,” the radical plan once shunned by major Religious Right organizations, continues to gain prominent supporters within the conservative movement. Following in the footsteps of other right-wing leaders like Bryan Fischer, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has come out in favor of the Personhood Amendment, which would give legal rights to zygotes and criminalize abortion, stem-cell research, common forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.

As voters consistently voted down Personhood Amendments by lopsided margins in Colorado, leading groups like National Right to Life and Americans United for Life refused to back the Amendment and the Colorado Eagle Forum warned allies in 2009 that the Personhood movement intends to “spread their disaster to key swing states like Florida, Missouri, Nevada and Montana.”

And now the Personhood movement is doing exactly that, but this time with the support of major Religious Right figures, and even Republican politicians.

Fischer, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel have come out strongly in favor of the Personhood Amendment that will be on Mississippi’s November ballot, as have top Republicans like Senator Roger Wicker and Congressman Alan Nunnelee.

In Georgia, Perkins praised the Personhood Amendment introduced by state Sen. Barry Loudermilk, saying, “The Georgia Personhood Amendment is a reflection of a growing pro-life sentiment across the country.”

But in 2007, James Bopp, the General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, criticized the Personhood measure in Georgia, known as the Human Life Amendment (HLA), in a legal memo. Warning of “the inevitable striking down” of the amendment and that “significant damage would be done,” Bopp said that “the proposed HLA has serious flaws and is not a wise use of pro-life resources at this time.”

Georgia and Mississippi aren’t the only states where the Personhood movement is moving into high gear.

The State House in North Dakota just passed a personhood bill that one supporter said “should shut down” the state’s last clinic that provides abortion services, and a subcommittee in the Iowa State House also approved a personhood bill. Personhood USA, the leading advocacy organization, has pledged to mount fights in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Montana as well.

Filed Personhood USA
Reproductive Rights
Tony Perkins
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) Proposes Legislation “Identical” to Radical “Personhood” Amendment
Submitted by Brian on January 26, 2011 - 10:59am
Right Wing Watch has been covering the extreme “personhood” movement, which after being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in Colorado, has emerged as a powerful force in Mississippi, where the amendment will be on the 2011 ballot. Now, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker is taking the “personhood” fight to the national level by introducing legislation in the Senate mirroring Mississippi’s personhood initiative.

The “personhood” movement seeks to give legal rights to zygotes and would effectively criminalize abortion, stem-cell research, common forms of birth control and even in vitro fertilization. The once-fringe “personhood” activists were initially renounced by Religious Right organizations as unrealistic and unhelpful to the anti-choice cause, but now groups like the American Family Association and Liberty Counsel along with leading Republican politicians have embraced the Mississippi Personhood campaign led by Les Riley, a radical activist who supports the separatist “Christian Exodus” movement.

Senator Wicker spoke to the AFA’s Director of Issue Analysis and resident bigot Bryan Fischer on Focal Point and pledged to introduce the “Life at Conception Act.” Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) plans to introduce a companion bill in the House.

About two minutes in to the interview, Wicker tells Fischer that “a personhood amendment to the state constitution [will be] voted on very soon in my state, and I’m not the only one who’s seized on to this idea and of course it will be introduced in the House of Representatives also.”

Fischer replies, “In fact we have talked on this program frequently about the personhood amendment, and in fact I believe if I’m not mistaken Senator Wicker, the language in Mississippi’s personhood amendment and in your ‘Life at Conception Act’ are virtually identical in the key paragraphs.” Wicker backs up Fischer’s claim, saying, “That is certainly my understanding, yes sir.”

Watch:



http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/personhood-usa

sack316
06-10-2011, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yeah, well you know, it wouldn't be somthing you'd want to make available in family restaurants, but in nightclubs, and dinner clubs? Places where one would find a lot of adult singles???


I wonder, do they still sell prophylactics in men's rooms, in those kinds of places?

G. </div></div>

I don't tend to hit the clubs too much, but I believe they do. And almost always a dispenser in men's rooms at gas stations.

As far as clubs, I do see your point. But I actually think it would be better to even have condom machines also in the women's rooms. The pill thing is a good thought, but isn't going to protect her from STD's if she is going to hook up. Then she isn't relying on the guy to be responsible (because let's face it, being smart and responsible isn't quite the top of us fella's priority list at that point lol).

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-10-2011, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yeah, well you know, it wouldn't be somthing you'd want to make available in family restaurants, but in nightclubs, and dinner clubs? Places where one would find a lot of adult singles???


I wonder, do they still sell prophylactics in men's rooms, in those kinds of places?

G. </div></div>

I don't tend to hit the clubs too much, but I believe they do. And almost always a dispenser in men's rooms at gas stations.

As far as clubs, I do see your point. But I actually think it would be better to even have condom machines also in the women's rooms. The pill thing is a good thought, but isn't going to protect her from STD's if she is going to hook up. Then she isn't relying on the guy to be responsible (because let's face it, being smart and responsible isn't quite the top of us fella's priority list at that point lol).

Sack </div></div>

Agree!

I wonder if all the big push to outlaw birth control for women, in your state, is going to address all of those machines in men's rooms, as well?

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception

As the Religious right is now working to ban birth control, will the more moderate on the right stand up and fight against these RW efforts?

I suppose you know what is going in the Alabama legislature?

G.

Sid_Vicious
06-11-2011, 08:41 AM
There are many conditions where man hole covers fail, and the pill would make sense as an added prevention. These things tear, slip, even have microscopic pin holes you never know about. Besides, we all surely know that many active partners still choose to go unsheathed to this day, so I say give them the access to the morning after pill. it is the educated thing to do. sid

LWW
06-11-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not?

I think it would be a great idea!!!

What do you think?

G. </div></div>

Can't say I'm very familiar with how it is distributed now. But sure, if a location wishes to dispense it from their ladies room then why not? It shouldn't be forced or required of establishments to provide it, of course. But if someone chooses to then by all means go ahead.

Sack </div></div>

They will probably be covered by Obamacare.

LWW
06-11-2011, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

I wondered how long this thread would take to turn into another "I HATE BUSH" rant?

LWW
06-11-2011, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The more babies we can kill off, the better!

(and isn't that what motivated this thread in the first place?)

Steve </div></div>

Lenin and Hitler instituted pro abortion laws also.

moblsv
06-11-2011, 08:12 PM
Why not indeed. As long there is no valid medical reason for limiting access.

Qtec
06-12-2011, 12:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure. Let's just give easy access to the 14 year old girls...no questions asked!

Steve
</div></div>

At least they won't get pregnant.

Q

Qtec
06-12-2011, 12:12 AM
Should be.

Q

Qtec
06-12-2011, 12:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

I wondered how long this thread would take to turn into another "I HATE BUSH" rant? </div></div>

It was a joke and I didn't sense any hate.

Q

Qtec
06-12-2011, 12:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lenin and Hitler instituted pro abortion laws also. </div></div>

Geez, you guys are so ignorant.

What is the MorningAfterPill?


It prevents pregnancy by,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> altering the lining of your womb, <u>so that an egg can't embed itself there.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It does not causes abortions. And it won't work if you're already pregnant.</span> </div></div>

Got it?

Q

LWW
06-12-2011, 04:04 AM
The statement you quoted was not in reference to the pill ... please pay attention.

LWW
06-12-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To NOT make birth control available would be pre civilized thinking. My answer is "yes!" I just wish that Barbara Bush had it back in her day. One pill, or as Al Bundy said about his kids, "Oh, for the lack of one condom." sid </div></div>

I wondered how long this thread would take to turn into another "I HATE BUSH" rant? </div></div>

It was a joke and I didn't sense any hate.

Q </div></div>

That only proves that hate is your standard state of mind, not that I didn't already know this.

Qtec
06-12-2011, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The statement you quoted was <span style='font-size: 26pt'>not in reference to the pill</span> ... please pay attention. </div></div>

NUTJOB. What was in reference to?

Q...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the MorningAfter<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Pill</span>? </div></div>

You need to up those Meds, or maybe cut back.

Q

LWW
06-12-2011, 05:31 AM
Find someone fluent in English to explain this to you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The more babies we can kill off, the better!

(and isn't that what motivated this thread in the first place?)

Steve </div></div>

Lenin and Hitler instituted pro abortion laws also. </div></div>

Sev
06-13-2011, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not?

I think it would be a great idea!!!

What do you think?

G. </div></div>

I dont really care.

If it helps prevent stupid people from breeding. So much the better.

It might be better to put a birth control agent in the municipal water systems so nobody can breed until they are licensed to.
That would be effective in weeding out certain sectors of the population that use breeding as a way to scam the system.

The savings to the tax payers would be tremendous.

Qtec
06-13-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It might be better to put a birth control agent in the municipal water systems so nobody can breed until they are licensed to. </div></div>

The whole point about this is that people still have a choice.


Q

Gayle in MD
06-13-2011, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It might be better to put a birth control agent in the municipal water systems so nobody can breed until they are licensed to. </div></div>

The whole point about this is that people still have a choice.


Q </div></div>

True, and it is our choices which the religious right is determined to prevent by depriving women of their constitutional rights.

Will orgainzed religion and the Republican Party, ever end their misogyny? Organized religion has a history of it since the beginning of recorded history.

Seems it is worse than ever, now, thanks to the blennding of the Republican party, and orgainzed religion.

What's that again, waving the flag, carrying the cross?

Yep.

G.

LWW
06-13-2011, 12:00 PM
Can you show me where in the COTUS women have the right to force ALL ladies rooms to sell them?