GOP Continuing War on Women

[Tiggs]

Did I miss the part where GOP leaders are storming into homes accompanied by the military and forcing women to have unprotected sex?

Are the military involved in any of the other things that you're quite happy calling wars?

[Tiggs]

Not to mention, women make 74% to 77% on the dollar that men do. I don't see Dems or Pubs doing anything about that either.

Perhaps you missed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act getting repealed earlier this month.

[questionmark]

Perhaps you missed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act getting repealed earlier this month.

And "surprisingly" there is an ® behind his name

[Flibbertigibbet]

Sorry, maybe I've missed something important here, but I find the idea that women's rights are somehow tied up with, and dependent, on being pro-abortion to be despicable.

[Michelle]

Perhaps you missed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act getting repealed earlier this month.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=225133&st=0&p=4257421&fromsearch=1entry4257421

This one? I don't miss much and this is very important to me.

Unlike some people, I am not blind to what either party does.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Michelle

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Hang on, because something worse is being done elsewhere then something that reeks faintly of bigotry and oppression somewhere else is actually roses? What the GOP is doing is tantamount to setting back womens' rights at the very least half-a-century, but yes, it's not as bad as what's happening in Africa and in Honour Killings. So yes, the GOP is smelling of roses right now.

[Farmer77]

Hang on, because something worse is being done elsewhere then something that reeks faintly of bigotry and oppression somewhere else is actually roses? What the GOP is doing is tantamount to setting back womens' rights at the very least half-a-century, but yes, it's not as bad as what's happening in Africa and in Honour Killings. So yes, the GOP is smelling of roses right now.

Facepalm ........you miss the point. The GOP and the democrats are one in the same. If the GOP cared about abortion they would have made it illegal while Bush had a full repub congress. Conversely if the dems actually cared about protecting women they wouldnt have attempted to change the very law that has, as some have claimed, protected women since 1994 - in an election year, when they knew the illegal immigrant and LGBT wording would start a fight - for show.

The point is neither of the parties ACTUALLY care about any of this. Its all show for distraction, to get people hating each other based on something that noone in power will ever change rather than focusing on real issues.

[Tiggs]

http://www.unexplain...1

This one? I don't miss much and this is very important to me.

Unlike some people, I am not blind to what either party does.

Yes, that's the one.

I see you started the OP for the link - what's your viewpoint regarding it?

[+and-then]

The 2% annual figure is actually 1.96% currently - 19.6 per 1000 women according to Guttmacher:

The forty percent figure is from two differing studies by Stanley K. Henshaw for Guttmacher, with slightly different projections - a 1992 study estimating 43% and a 2008 study estimating 35%.

I plead guilty to having taken some liberty with rounding for dramatic effect.

It should also be noted that if Abortion rates stay at the 2008 figure, Guttmacher calculate that only 30% of 18 year old's today are likely to have an abortion, so it's at least heading in the right direction.

Thanks for providing that information. I knew the numbers were high but I never realized just how pervasive it has become. I know that abortion has always been with us but I wonder if these rates point to the ease of acquiring one today or if they simply reflect what's been a norm for years..... such a waste.

[conspiracybeliever]

A War on Women is happening in the world as we speak.

You don't care about it though. You just care about your daily "progressive" talking points.

In three African countries, bride kidnapping often takes the form of abduction followed by rape.

Rwanda

Bride-kidnapping is prevalent in areas of Rwanda. Often the abductor kidnaps the woman from her household or follows her outside and abducts her. He and his companions may then rape the woman to ensure that she submits to the marriage. The family of the woman either then feels obliged to consent to the union, or is forced to when the kidnapper impregnates her, as pregnant women are not seen as eligible for marriage. The marriage is confirmed with a ceremony that follows the abduction by several days. In such ceremonies, the abductor asks his bride's parents to forgive him for abducting their daughter. The man may offer a cow, money, or other goods as restitution to his bride's family.

Bride-kidnap marriages in Rwanda often lead to poor outcomes. Human rights workers report that one third of men who abduct their wives abandon them, leaving the wife without support and impaired in finding a future marriage. Additionally, with the growing frequency of bride-kidnapping, some men choose not to solemnize their marriage at all, keeping their "bride" as a concubine. Domestic violence is also common and is not illegal.

Bride kidnapping is not specifically outlawed in Rwanda, though violent abductions are punishable as rape. According to a criminal justice official, bride kidnappers are virtually never tried in court: "When we hear about abduction, we hunt down the kidnappers and arrest them and sometimes the husband, too. But we're forced to let them all go several days later," says an official at the criminal investigation department in Nyagatare, the capital of Umutara." Women's rights groups have attempted to reverse the tradition by conducting awareness raising campaigns and by promoting gender equity, but the progress has been limited so far.

Ethiopia

In parts of Ethiopia, a man working in co-ordination with his friends may kidnap a girl or woman, sometimes using a horse to ease the escape. The abductor will then hide his intended bride and rape her until she becomes pregnant. As the father of the woman's child, the man can claim her as his wife. Subsequently, the kidnapper may try to negotiate a bride price with the village elders to legitimize the marriage. Girls as young as eleven years old are reported to have been kidnapped for the purpose of marriage. Though Ethiopia criminalized such abductions and raised the marriageable age to 18 in 2004, this law has not been well implemented.

The bride of the forced marriage may suffer from both the physical consequences of early sexual activity and pregnancy, and the early end to her education.[16] Abductions of schoolgirls still occur in Oromiya, for example. Women and girls who are kidnapped may also be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

Kenya

Forced marriages continue to be a problem for young girls in Kenya. The United States Department of State reports that children and young teenaged girls (aged ten and up) are sometimes married to men two decades or more their seniors.

Marriage by abduction used to be, and to some extent still is, a customary practice for the Kisii ethnic group. In their practice, the abductor kidnaps the woman forcibly and rapes her in an attempt to impregnate her. The "bride" is then coerced through the stigma of pregnancy and rape to marry her abductor. Though most common in the late 19th century through the 1960s, such marriage abductions still occur occasionally.

The Turkana tribe in Kenya also practiced marriage by abduction. In this culture, bridal kidnapping (akomari) occurred before any formal attempts to arrange a marriage with a bride's family. According to one scholar, a successful bridal kidnapping raised the abductor's reputation in his community, and allowed him to negotiate a lower bride price with his wife's family. Should an attempted abductor fail to seize his bride, he was bound to pay a bride price to the woman's family, provide additional gifts and payments to the family, and to have an arranged marriage (akota).

But yeah, the U.S. Republicans are waging a "war on women"...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You forgot in the US they are targeting women, single mothers, in the courts. There is definately a war on women in the US. They are just better at covering it up. And we have a very weak society that only cares about protecting their money and whatever **** they possess. And most of that comes from the war on women. If there wasn't this war on women you wouldn't have it. But go ahead and list all the obvious crimes against women in other countries. It takes nothing away from what is going on in this country. But let's keep pointing fingers at other countries so no one will notice.

[Rafterman]

Ok thanks. Do the Democrats have a nickname?

Dumbasses?

joking.

The two parties also have symbols - Democrats are donkeys and Republicans are elephants.

[Rafterman]

If you believe that women's lives literally aren't at stake - perhaps you should go and ask Candidate Romney whether women who get illegal abortions die.

I dare you. I double dare you.

How does one get an "illegal" abortion when abortion is perfectly legal?

[Rafterman]

There is a war on women going on... Have you paid any attention to "abortion" laws being passed?? One passed in Arizona gives doctors the right to withhold information that could be life threatening to the woman because it made lead to an abortion. They would rather have the woman and baby die than give the woman a choice... how is that right?? Why should it be up to a doctor to decide what my life is worth to him??? How is that pro-life? Not to mention insurance companies... Do you know what insurance rates are for women between the ages of 25-30?? It's almost impossible to get insurance because it's prime birthing age, wtf is that all about?? A war on women... Oh yes!! Need more proof let me know... There's plenty of f'd up laws and articles about them to back me up.

And men pay more for auto insurance. Risk factors are risk factors - that's how insurance works.

If you get insurance through your employer (as the overwhelming majority of folks do), you pay a flat rate. There are no differences for sex, age, etc.

Besides, didn't Obamacare fix this? Why did he allow this 'war on women' be perpetuated?

[Rafterman]

Perhaps you missed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act getting repealed earlier this month.

If you read beyond the headlines, there were real problems with that law and many business organizations were in favor of its repeal.

Besides, seems like the Obama Administration needs such a law:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war-on-women-white-house-found-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Edited April 21, 2012 by Rafterman

[Leonardo]

If you read beyond the headlines, there were real problems with that law and many business organizations were in favor of its repeal.

Besides, seems like the Obama Administration needs such a law:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war-on-women-white-house-found-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

The article linked is nothing to do with Equal Pay legislation, which is about equal pay for equal jobs. The figures for White House Staff simply indicate that more men occupy higher-paying positions than women do. This might still be discrimination, but it would be related to the so-called 'glass-ceiling' than equal pay.

[questionmark]

If you read beyond the headlines, there were real problems with that law and many business organizations were in favor of its repeal.

Besides, seems like the Obama Administration needs such a law:

http://www.theblaze....erage-than-men/

The business associations are also in favor of you getting a maximum of two dollars an hour... so your point is exactly? That as next step thge Repubs should put in a law limiting salaries to $2 in the US for those who are not in at least the upper middle management?

[Tiggs]

How does one get an "illegal" abortion when abortion is perfectly legal?

In Romney's case - by either experiencing the world prior to Roe Vs Wade (which he has) or by the removal of the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision and letting the States decide.

Y'know. The very thing that Romney's been very publicly advocating.

If you read beyond the headlines, there were real problems with that law and many business organizations were in favor of its repeal.

In exactly the same way that the same business organizations were in favor of removing collective Union bargaining.

There's real problems with that, too. Something about having to pay a fair wage, apparently.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Tiggs

[Mantis914]

I disagree. The foreign partner the IMB is matching the American client to has a right to know that information before agreeing to any marriage contract. Additionally, it is not singling out IMB's, as the dating sites these are compared to are not Marriage Brokers and it would be presumed people meeting on those sites get to know each other before committing to a relationship.

There is no stereotyping in providing that information, because the information is provided without opinion as to the 'type' of person the US client is.

And Constitutional guarantees are only relevant to contracts and associations within the USA. The IMB service is International and the US-based client should not expect Constitutional protection accordingly.

That's a two way street involving a lot of trust and money. I know there's scumbags out there that would use these services just to have someone they could abuse but also I've heard horror stories of men spending major bucks bringing a girl from overseas only to have her run off on him or her abuse him, novel idea, right?? Also, if you bring a girl from overseas, you better be well to do because you may as well forget ever going on government aid for any reason as long as you are with her, she can sue you for any reason even if you divorce, and the best part, you are only "allowed" 2 tries under this act. Your other alternative? Marry a US girl and get divorced or abused also anyway in a short time.

[Rafterman]

The business associations are also in favor of you getting a maximum of two dollars an hour... so your point is exactly? That as next step thge Repubs should put in a law limiting salaries to $2 in the US for those who are not in at least the upper middle management?

Really? Who exactly is in favor of that?

The point is there were problems with that bill and a lot of groups were in favor of its repeal and RETOOLING.

Just because someone makes a bill and calls it the I Love Puppy Dogs and Bunny Rabbits bill, doesn't mean those oppose it hate puppy dogs and bunny rabbits.

Funny how Scott Walker is still pulling over 50% favorability ratings and beating the union-thug backed opponents trying to marginalize the lawful votes of the citizens of the great state of Wisconsin.

[Rafterman]

In Romney's case - by either experiencing the world prior to Roe Vs Wade (which he has) or by the removal of the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision and letting the States decide.

Y'know. The very thing that Romney's been very publicly advocating.

In exactly the same way that the same business organizations were in favor of removing collective Union bargaining.

There's real problems with that, too. Something about having to pay a fair wage, apparently.

I'm a little fuzzy on this - how exactly does a President remove a decision of the US Supreme Court?

Pretty much every Republican President since the RvW decision has been pro-life - has abortion been made illegal?

[Tiggs]

I'm a little fuzzy on this - how exactly does a President remove a decision of the US Supreme Court?

By stacking it with Republican Judges in favor of reversing the decision and bringing up a test case. In exactly the same way that they tried to do so in 1992, for instance, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

Pretty much every Republican President since the RvW decision has been pro-life - has abortion been made illegal?

Not for lack of trying - see above.

They've yet to gain a solid Pro-life Supreme Court via appointments. Due to three impending retirements, this next election will be another real chance for them to actually do so.

[The Silver Thong]

, this next election will be another real chance for them to actually do so.

The dems will win in a landslide. Not that there is much difference but pro choice is by far the majority and that wins the womens vote. When did women get the right to vote the war on women seems such a harsh use of words.

[John Denning]

Ok thanks. Do the Democrats have a nickname?

Yes in Texas we call them Jerks!

[Ratte]

It's beyond me how any man can think they have any right to make decisions about womens reproductive health.

[Rafterman]

By stacking it with Republican Judges in favor of reversing the decision and bringing up a test case. In exactly the same way that they tried to do so in 1992, for instance, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

Not for lack of trying - see above.

They've yet to gain a solid Pro-life Supreme Court via appointments. Due to three impending retirements, this next election will be another real chance for them to actually do so.

The facts don't support your position and prove that the system does, indeed, work:

At the conference of the Justices two days after oral argument, Justice Souter defied expectations, joining Justices O'Connor, Stevens, and Blackmun, who had likewise refused to do so three years earlier in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. This resulted in a precarious five Justice majority consisting of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas that favored upholding all the abortion restrictions. However, Kennedy changed his mind shortly thereafter and joined with fellow Reagan-Bush justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter to write a plurality opinion that would reaffirm Roe