this seems petty and mean.

Conservatives normally favor the status quo, or slow gradual changes to things.

These people are changing laws and policies as fast as they can.

They're radicals, not conservatives.

Captain Dan: bugontherug: When asked to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird, Romney declined to do so.

There are three interpretations why he did so. It's up to your judgment which one sounds likeliest.

1) Mitt Romney is concealing his plans to pack the Supreme Court with the goal of one day criminalizing contraception.

2) Mitt Romney, despite having graduated from Harvard Law School, doesn't understand the implications of Griswold.

3) Mitt Romney doesn't want to limit contraception at all, but has to pretend that he might in order to pander to the socially conservative voters who dominate Republican

4) Romney is beholden to an extreme ideological right-wing base, and willing to do anything, including consider anti-contraception Supreme Court justices, to appease them.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Captain Dan: As I've posted above, I don't know enough about the law to have an informed opinion about its repeal. From what I understand, the advocates for repeal were primarily interested in reducing discrimination lawsuits. Again, I leave it to your good judgment what was the likelier motivation:

1) Republican legislators wanted to reduce discrimination lawsuits because, deep down, they really just want women to suffer.

2) Republican legislators wanted to reduce discrimination lawsuits because they're bad for business.

Still trying to evade the concept of "actively hostile to the interests of women." Regardless of motive, making it easier for corporations to engage in pay discrimination is actively hostile to the interests of women. If you want to know what I think about motive, though it isn't directly relevant, the answer is, yes. I do believe conservatives and their chosen representatives in the Republican Party are actually misogynists. They've been taught it mainly through religion.

Wage discrimination is still not legal under Wisconsin law, because it illegal under federal law (Equal Pay Act of 1963) and federal statute always takes precedent over state law. All Walker did was repeal the redundant state version, which was passed in 2009, and return jurisdiction to the federal government.


There is no Wisconsin law banning pay discrimination. The existence of a federal statute banning pay discrimination does not make it illegal under Wisconsin law to engage in pay discrimination. As the terms are ordinarily used, pay discrimination is illegal in Wisconsin by operation of federal statute, but is perfectly legal under Wisconsin law.

Either way, Walker's repeal of Wisconsin's ban on pay discrimination makes it easier for perpetrators of pay discrimination to get away with it. Regardless of motive, making it easier to engage in pay discrimination is actively hostile to the interests of women, which is the real issue before us.

If you want to make a Critical Legal Studies argument, there are better ways to do so.


I neither know what you mean by nor care about "Critical Legal Studies." The fact is, the federal bench has always been famously hostile to plaintiffs in my lifetime. As the federal bench has become even more dominated by rigidly ideological extremist judges, it has become even moreso.


He interpreted the law straightforwardly. Your contention, therefore, isn't really against Roberts, but against the text of the Civil Rights Act. That was amended 3 years ago by the Lily Ledbetter Act.

No, he didn't. He interpreted it in a novel way never accepted in 40 years of Title VII history. He interpreted in a way that, had it remained in effect, would have altered the entire landscape of federal pay discrimination law. He interpreted in a way that surprised lawyers, law professors, and court watchers across the country. His interpretation was novel, activist, and the most pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation possible.


There is no evidence at all that Roberts is biased for corporations or against women, unless you want to engage in a CLS argument that all law is inherently pro-corporation and anti-women.

I don't care whether Roberts is biased for corporations or against women. I do know that his decisions are pro-corporation and anti-woman. Understanding this does not require a CLS argument. All law does not have to be biased for Roberts' interpretation of the statutory window to be the most pro-corporation, anti-woman interpretation available. For example, the 180 day window could have been triggered "at the time the discrimination is discovered" or "at the time of the last act of discrimination." Not all law need be biased for Roberts to have chosen either of those two interpretations.

My question: Depending on context, they may or may not be. Surely a woman who has in fact been raped is fairly characterized as a "victim." Or do you find that "too loaded?"

Your answer:

Even if it were fair to characterize them as victims, disregarding the potential of false accusations, I would still avoid the term. It unavoidably prejudices.

I deny that this is hostile to women. I value the same approach to all crimes and for all genders.


Thus, your position is either:

1) Regardless of context, it is prejudicial to refer to rape victims as rape victims, and saying that evinces no hostility to women, or

2) I did not read the question carefully.

I've posted above that I don't watch Fox News. Are you claiming that (1) I watch Fox News without being aware of it, or (2) that I watch Fox News and lie about it?

If I've omitted some other interpretation which doesn't speak poorly of you, please say so. Perhaps "Fox News viewer" is a metaphorical term that you use for people who do not in fact view Fox News?


Had you carefully read the question, I was clearly insinuating you watch Fox News and lie about it.

Now you've spent plenty of time conflating "factual hostility to the interests of women" with "subjectively intended hostility to the interests of women." A distinction you must make in order to preserve your fantasy that the Republican Party is not actively hostile to the interests of women. As for your claims that there is "no evidence" of subjective Republican anti-woman bias, the subjective motive can be inferred from the objective actives. Taken together, Republican actions evince a theme: hostility to the interests of women. That by itself permits the inference that the theme of their actions is also subjectively intended.

Captain Dan: I can find no quotes of Romney saying that. Santorum did, because he opposes the idea of a right to privacy as a penumbral right. I think he's wrong, and I'm glad that he's not the GOP's nominee

When asked to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird, Romney declined to do so. This in the context of a campaign in which the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird were directly in issue. Moreover, the right to contraception is derived from similar constitutional foundations tp the right to abortion. Conservative ideology opposes those foundations.

Romney's refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird signals to his ideologically conservative, anti-contraception rights base that he will consider anti-contraception Supreme Court justices. Because contraception benefits primarily women, opposition to it is actively hostile to the interests of women.

You're not accurately summarizing this matter, but to respond to your broader claim: the Republican Party is going to try to limit abortions in almost all cases (except, as mentioned earlier, the life of the mother). That's part of the party platform. If they can only achieve this goal piecemeal, then that's what they'll do.


It's good to see you cede that banning federal funding for child victims to abort sex predators' babies is actively hostile to the interests of women. That is why you're trying to change the subject, after all.

No, he didn't. If you think otherwise, please provide the proof that has eluded everyone else.


I see you're committed to evading the question of whether repealing the law was actively hostile to the interests of women. It was. Walker repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which created a state cause of action with state damages for pay discrimination in the workplace. In so doing, he eliminated Wisconsin's state ban on pay discrimination in the workplace. Thus making it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate against women in pay. Unless you can show that some Wisconsin law banning pay discrimination remains in place, the point is proved. Moreover, even if such a law appears on the books, but is in practical effect unenforceable, I stand by my point.

Of course the federal cause of action remains. But federal courts are more expensive, and dominated by activist judges committed to rigidly anti-plaintiff ideology. They bias juries against non-corporate plaintiffs, find petty excuses to throw out real claims, and when non-corporate plaintiffs do win damages, they reduce or eliminate the damages on appeal.


I'm not able to read John Roberts' mind, as you apparently are, but I seriously doubt that unbridled misogyny was the impelling force in his decision.

I'm not interested in Roberts' motive, though there exists substantial evidence that he is driven in part by anti-woman, pro-corporate ideology. I am interested in the fact that he selected a novel interpretation which was the most pro-corporate, woman-hostile interpretation available to that statute. A fact you seem desperate to obscure.

Were I being 100% reasonable, I wouldn't engage with someone whose mind isn't going to change regardless of what I say. But, I hope some other posters will read what I've posted and think "that guy is actually pretty reasonable."

1) You've still unreasonably refused to acknowledge the hostility to women evinced by legislation aimed renaming from "victims" to "accusers" only those crimes of which women are typically victims. If your aim is to appear reasonable, you are failing. Of course, you can't appear reasonable, because you are trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.

2) If you were being 100% reasonable, you would too consider changing your mind in response to effectively framed arguments supported by objective facts of reality.

The terms "accuser" and "victim" are both too loaded to be used impartially. Almost any reasonable person will agree with that.


Depending on context, they may or may not be. Surely a woman who has in fact been raped is fairly characterized as a "victim." Or do you find that "too loaded?" And if you do find it "too loaded," do you likewise deny that saying rape victims shouldn't be called rape victims is actively hostile to the interests of women?

I stand corrected! Voting to filibuster, and then immediately voting for closure to end debate, strikes me as more rhetorical point-making than a devious stratagem in the War on Women.


Even the 17 who finally voted for the bill, initially participated in the filibuster to help negotiate provisions which made it harder for victims of pay discrimination to prevail. Thus, not only did almost all of the Republican Party oppose the final bill, even the handful of Republicans who voted for it still evinced hostility to the interests of women by seeking to making it more difficult for them to vindicate pay discrimination claims in court.


I don't watch Fox News, because it poisons minds and polarizes otherwise decent people. People who get their news from partisan sources so often end up repeating talking points like "Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women."

Mr. Justice Scalia would probably likewise deny he allows Fox News to inform his voting decisions. But his demonstrated on the bench ignorance about the provisions of PPACA suggest if he says so, he's not being entirely truthful. Similarly, your denial that the Republican Party is actively hostile to the interests of women, which within the context of our political culture is reasonably flourished as a "War on Women," suggests that you too are a Fox News viewer.

On a final but important note: I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable.


Neither are you. What's that got to do with anything?

Captain Dan: There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.

The Republicans Party is actively hostile to the interests of women, and seeking to do as much legal damage to those interests as it can. "War on Women" is a reasonable rhetorical flourish given this reality.

Captain Dan: There is no constitutional entitlement to contraception, only the right to lawfully purchase it. You've confused "not illegal" with "everyone is entitled to it."

Your misrepresentation of my argument here is prima facie and conclusive proof that you are either ignorant or dishonest on this issue. Try again, only this time respond to my argument re: Romney and Santorum seeking to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases establishing the federal constitutional right to contraception. This isn't about public funding for contraception.This is about the constitutional right to use contraception. A right which conservative ideology opposes, and by which opposition the Republicans demonstrate active hostility to the interests of women.


I'm with you on this one, because I am pro-choice. But I understand the opposing viewpoint, and you don't. From a coherent pro-life view, abortion is murder, and murder shouldn't be permitted even in the most inconvenient circumstances (i.e. unless the mother's life is at risk).

The point of view you offer would oppose all federal funding for abortion, not just federal funding for minors impregnated by sexual predators. And is inapposite to the question of whether the Republicans are actively hostile to the interests of women. They are, and their effort to ban federal funding for abortions by child victims of sex predators is evidence of that.


Very few Republicans oppose abortions that are necessary to protect the mother's life. There's a small handful of them, and they don't constitute much of an army for the "War on Women."

You seem to have failed to understand everything I said. How many Republicans oppose how many abortions is irrelevant to the question of whether House Republicans sought to immunize hospitals who refused to perform abortions in cases where the pregnancy threatened the mother's life. They did, and it's evidence that the Republican Party is actively hostile to the interests of women.

He did not make it "perfectly legal," he changed the appropriate venue for remedy from state courts to federal courts.


At least you've finally said something on point. In fact, Walker did make it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate on the basis of pay. But careful reading doesn't exactly seem to be your forte. And his abolition of Wisconsin's cause of action for pay discrimination is actively hostile to the interests of women.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) clearly specified the timetable to bring lawsuits: 180 days. Lily Ledbetter did not meet that timetable. Conservative justices ruled against her in 2007, upholding the text of the Civil Rights Act.


Of course, your response is utterly non-responsive to the point that conservative justices offered a novel, corporate agenda driven interpretation of when that 180 day clock begins ticking. An interpretation which was: 1) never accepted in more than 40 years of Title VII history, and which was 2) the most actively woman-hostile interpretation the conservative justices could possibly have chosen.


The bill was opposed because Democrats, possessing majorities in both chambers, were not entertaining any Republican input, such as provisions to limit frivolous lawsuits.

Its only provision was to overturn a novel, pro-corporation Supreme Court decision with the practical effect of banning nearly all federal causes of action for pay discrimination. Their opposition to it was actively hostile to the interests of women.


Also, you are factually incorrect: 17 Republican Senators voted for closure on the bill, and 5 Republican Senators supported the final version of the Act.

You are factually incorrect. All 17 of those Senators, even the 5 who supported the final bill, first participated in the filibuster. At that time, Republicans unanimously opposed the bill.

The term "victim" is loaded. So is "accuser." They should have gone with a more neutral term. Same goes for all crimes.


Were you being reasonable, you would have acknowledged the hostility toward women exhibited by the effort to rename only the crimes of which women are typically victims. But instead of being reasonable, you're trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.


I'm glad that you're politically involved, but your views of Republicans are founded on distortions. If you get past the talking points, you'll find that political issues rarely break down to Good vs. Evil.

My views of Republicans are founded on researched objective facts of reality, many of which you are either ignorant of, or found so inconvenient that you disregarded them completely. If you get past the Fox News talking points, you'll see that the Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women, which was the subject of my post.

Captain Dan: Weaver95: If you make less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican, then you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Not everyone votes solely on profit-maximization. If they did, they would rationally vote to amend the Constitution, and then seize and redistribute Bill Gates' assets.

If you can understand why people might view that as immoral, anti-social, and disincentivizing, then you can surely fathom why they might support the Republican platform of low taxes on all income.

I was referring to the fact that middle class wages have been flat for the past 20 years while productivity has risen...why you went with 'OMGSOCIALISMS' is entirely beyond me but...just as you will.

Captain Dan: Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.

Yeah, I'm glad that Republicans are so interested now in protecting religious freedom. I remember when they stood firm for religious freedom when muslims wanted to build a Mosque in downtown Manhattan.

Captain Dan: I reject the premise of "the anti-contraception conservative base." Only 2-3% of Americans identify as anti-contraception. If you're going to label everyone who doesn't consider contraception an entitlement to be "anti-contraception," why stop there? Why not label people who don't favor subsidized iPads to be "anti-Apple"?

Back to the point, Romney has never issued a negative word against contraception. Your fears are unfounded.


1) The conservative judicial philosophy opposes the right to contraception as strongly as it does the right to abortion.

2) By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the right to contraception in the context of a primary election in which the legitimacy of the right to contraception was directly in issue, Romney spoke loudly and clearly to the anti-contraception conservative base.


This is a good point, and I wish it's the one you had made in the first place. Lax enforcement is obviously one tradeoff that Republican legislators should have considered against the benefits of an improved business environment.

Scott Walker made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex. Conservative judicial activists banned nearly all federal pay discrimination actions by a novel, activist, pro-corporate, and anti-textual interpretation of Title VII. The Republican Party is actively hostile to women who want to be paid equally for equal work at every level of government. Your quibble is over definitions.

You don't even understand your own side's arguments! The liberal Justices' case against Roberts is that he was too beholden to the text of the law, and that the focus should have been on extratextual remedy.


Because unlike you, I am not a zombie partisan sucking bullsh*t talking points out of Glenn Beck's ass, I do not see the world as breaking down into two "sides." Whatever some dissenter said, given the text you quoted, it is clear that Roberts picked the most pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation possible, that his interpretation was novel, and anti-textual.

Yes. There are Women's Rights Groups who have made the same argument - the term "victim" is inherently prejudicial in a legal context.

Are these Women's Rights Groups misogynistic as well? How deep does the rabbit hole of muliebrous self-hatred go?


No Women's Rights Group would deny that it is appropriate to say that a woman who was in fact raped is a victim.


I have a good faith, honestly held belief that you're lying about this. You don't really think that I'm a Fox News viewer. You're just saying so to be nettlesome.

And yet your arguments parrot Fox talking points so loyally. "Well some other liberal said this, so that means you're wrong for disagreeing with them! How come you don't toe the liberal line? How come you make independent arguments based on logic and objective facts of reality? Don't you know you're supposed to be made of straw so I can beat you up easily?"

The 11th Circuit's overturn rate is 60%, which is the third best in the country. The 9th's overturn rate is 80%, which is second-worst (only the Federal Circuit is worse).

You say that as though it undermines the proposition that the 11th Circuit is ideologically right wing. You say it as though it means something in an era in which the Supreme Court is dominated by committed conservative judicial activists, strongly sympathetic to an ideologically right wing lower court.

I happen to know something of the history and goals of conservatism. Because of that knowledge, I can confidently assert that your wished-for "War On Women" is a hallucination. Every shred of evidence you've presented has multiple explanations that are exponentially more plausible than misogynistic animus.


1) If you seriously believe American conservatism has no relationship to misogyny, you know nothing of the history and goals of conservatism. It was only in 1989 that a progressive Supreme Court finally vindicated womens' right to serve on juries against a Louisiana law barring them from doing so. At the time, conservative commentators called the Supreme Court "radical," "communist," and "activist." This even though a law prohibiting women from jury service could serve no plausible purpose except to vindicate conservative stereotypes about appropriate social roles for women.

And that's 1989. Conservatism's history of misogyny goes back much longer than that.

2) Whatever rationalizations you can come up with for each individual case, it's rather striking how consistently across different policy areas Republican policy is actively hostile to the interests of women. You suppose this is unconnected coincidence, despite the reality that modern evangelicals seriously argue that women shouldn't even be allowed to vote. You are blind to conservatism's misogyny.

Captain Dan: Republicans overwhelmingly support legal contraception. That's not the same as supporting free on-demand contraception (which I think would be a good idea, but I'm not going to force any religious institution to agree to).

Except, that they don't pay for contraception. They have offered insurance plans, and the employee has paid into that fund. The religious institution has not underwritten anything, they have acted as broker to that insurance plan--and the insurer gets a large pool of customers, who provide services to those customers.

That is the false portion of the show. The religious institution isn't paying for contraception, it is sometimes paying an insurer, but the relationship with the insurer and their client is between them, not the church.

Then again, perhaps it's time to come down to a single payer system, and then we won't have to worry about these issues. Right now, the middle men are simply slicing themselves off a piece of the pie, and not really providing much save more paperwork, more dollars wasted, and the only thing that they really provide is a layer of inefficiency to the system.

Captain Dan: quatchi: Calling it an entitlement is a misnomer that makes it sound like women want something for nothing when in reality they just want their access to health services not dictated by religious whim.

If that's the case, then why in God's name did Sandra Fluke attend a Catholic university that was morally opposed to providing the service she desires?

The real question here "is should a business be allowed to disallow access to contraception based on their beliefs or does a woman's right to access to basic health care (which includes various forms of BC) trump those concerns?"

I say yes, yes they do.

The rest of the civilized world tends to agree.

What do you say?

In cases of conflicting values, I grant the broadest tolerance towards religious freedom. Although I support birth control, and think that Catholic universities should offer it, I'm not going to compel them to do so. That strikes me as wrong, and unconstitutional.

For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, Georgetown isn't morally opposed to letting its staff use their prescription drug benefit to pay for birth control, and they claim that they allow students to use their insurance (which the school does not pay for) to cover it; they just reject most of the claims.

From her testimony:

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be, and under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill, or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she'd been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, "It was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor's office. Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: "If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it."

Link

It has nothing to do with any moral obligation to provide birth control coverage, otherwise they wouldn't be providing it to their employees:


In a letter obtained by ThinkProgress dated April 26, 2012, President John J. DeGioia informs the Georgetown community that the University will offer contraception "for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control," and will institute "no change to the University's approach to contraceptive coverage for employees":


After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

There will also be no change to the University's approach to contraceptive coverage for employees for 2013.

We will be monitoring further regulatory and judicial developments related to the Affordable Care Act. I hope this is helpful in clarifying a matter of concern to many of you.

In February, a Georgetown University spokesperson confirmed to ThinkProgress that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."

Link

Captain Dan: Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Although the guiding sentiment is correct, you should try to avoid that kind of language. It's politics, not a holy war.

Um, derp?

Captain Dan: Weaver95: It would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.

I agree, although I don't think that anti-corporate hostility is the ticket to get there.

it's not 'anti-corporate hostility' to point out the facts of our situation. and the fact is, corporations are screwing over US workers for no other reason than they can do it and get away with it. ok, fine - to them its just business. But for the rest of us, it's kinda personal.

vernonFL: Conservatives normally favor the status quo, or slow gradual changes to things.

These people are changing laws and policies as fast as they can.

They're radicals, not conservatives.

Very much so. Which is the problem that I have with the party's leadership right now. This radicalism is leading us down very ugly roads, and not just with the implosion of the economy or the drastic nature of debate on social issues.

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: Nevertheless, "conservatives" are clearly engaged in an effort to strip women of control of their own bodies and lives. But we again, you are right, we don't need to call it a war to point out what dickheads "conservatives" are.

I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative. We're not dickheads. Most of us aren't - there are some in every group. But the proportion is no different than in any other political demographic.

I realize that you probably don't actually believe that all, or even most, conservatives are dickheads. If you do, then you need more life experience. If you don't, then you need to be the bigger person and stop engaging in political sniping. Seriously: this crap ruins discourse. It is dehumanizing.

Dehumanization is always the precursor to hating a person or group. If you can mentally navigate yourself out of that pitfall, you will be happier, and you will have a more accurate and ethical point of view.

I have no problem with conservatives. I routinely put quotation marks around the term for a purpose: because the vast majority of people who call themselves conservative are not. They are as in love with big government as any big-government liberal, and just as happy to spend recklessly. They just prefer government involvement in different (social) areas.

While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.

hasty ambush: I am also guessing that from your argument you do not oppose tax money for vouchers so parents can send their kids to private schools or tax dollars to faith based initiatives as long as they double pinky swear that the money will only be used for secular activities and functions.

Because taxpayer supported religious schools and women's health programs not related to abortion are the EXACT SAME THING!!!

Crappy strawman is crappy.

/sarcasm

Cataholic: he federal system is not costlier and less accessible to average citizens because in pay discrimination cases the EEOC does all the work for you.

[citation will never be provided because you're a troll]

Captain Dan: Middle class wages have stagnated (actually, adjusted for inflation, they've decreased) because of factors beyond any political party's control. .

that is simply not true. it would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.

Captain Dan: 6) Republican Scott Walker has now made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.

He did not make it "perfectly legal," he changed the appropriate venue for remedy from state courts to federal courts.

The Equal Pay Enforcement Act was passed in 2009 and gave workers avenues to pursue complaints about pay discrimination in the workplace and press charges where necessary. The law conferred upon workers the ability to pursue their cases in circuit court rather than the federal court system, which is costlier and less accessible to average citizens. It also expanded the window in which complainants are allowed to file their complaints relative to the time when they worked under discriminatory conditions.

You support the establishment of a pay-for-play system for combating pay discrimination. What the fark is wrong with people like you?

Every female GOP vote is a betrayal to their gender. "Yeah but Jesus" was never a good excuse and is completely absurd at this point.

jjorsett: It's remarkable that every move the GOP makes is a furtherance of its epic War Against Women that nobody had even realized was going on until a couple of months ago. If I didn't know better, I'd think some sinister cabal is orchestrating a Big Lie propaganda campaign in an effort to distract the voting public's attention away from the miserable failure of its own policies.

Or maybe if you looked at the bills the GOP has been submitting all over the nation, it would make sense to you.

Watch news, not Fox.

Captain Dan: new version by Democrats, which includes an amnesty clause.

So if an illegal immigrant women is being abused, and is asking for our help, we should say no? Or say no, then deport her?

Democrat: 'we're proposing a resolution that says kicking puppies makes you a bad person and you should feel bad.'

GOP: hey, we agree! [adds amendment banning abortion].

Democrats: 'WTF dude? why did you do that!?'

GOP: 'do what? we said we supported your anti-puppy kicking resolution. lets vote!'

Democrats: 'we can't vote for that. you added in an amendment that you know we oppose.'

GOP: 'no idea what you're talking about dude. you must be high. you look high. i'll bet you're high, you hippie smoking pot head. now we voting on this thing or not?'

Democrats: 'what is this...I don't...NO! We can't vote for this and you know it!'

GOP: [stage whisper] See! I told you the Democrats kick puppies!'

Freepers: 'those bastards! vote them out!'

SkinnyHead: hubiestubert: SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: I'd say Senate democrats are the ones playing political games. They're the ones who inserted this new illegal alien provision into the VAWA in order to make the VAWA a political football.

let me ask you this question - what mistakes, if any, have the Republicans made over the past year? has the GOP ever, in your opinion, done ANYTHING wrong?

Is that your answer to the charge that this whole controversy has been manufactured by Senate democrats who added illegal alien provisions to the VAWA in order to draw fire.

Actually, I think that we are all interested if you just answered the question. Straight up. Consider it an opportunity to show the folks how free thinking and well considered you are.

But that would be off topic. I'm not the subject of this thread. The topic is how Senate democrats are playing politics with the VAWA by deliberately adding provisions they know will draw fire, instead of crafting a bill that everyone can support.

The immigrant provisions were already in previous versions of the law. If it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for the Republicans to claim they've been exploited by immigrant women fraudulently claiming abuse.

The Republican War on Women continues.

The author of the rollback, Adams, was herself a victim of domestic violence...

There's the GOP platform: I got mine, fark you.

hubiestubert: Weaver95: hubiestubert: It does make some sense. It adds a provision that could tank the bill. Then they can count the bill's not passing as a victory, or they can then point to the passage WITH the adendum, as a victory as well. It is about gamesmanship.

But if the GOP tanks this bill, the backlash will not benefit the GOP. it will, in fact, hurt them considerably with a key voting block (women voters). weakening this legislation will only hurt Republicans...and women, if this modification goes through.

No, because it will tank without bipartisan support. They can point to their own support as a shield. It is playing games with legislation, but it is about scoring points, not about the actual effect of the legislation.

this does not make me feel any better. you'd have to be a psychotic son of a biatch to pull something like that.

Weaver95: hubiestubert: It does make some sense. It adds a provision that could tank the bill. Then they can count the bill's not passing as a victory, or they can then point to the passage WITH the adendum, as a victory as well. It is about gamesmanship.

But if the GOP tanks this bill, the backlash will not benefit the GOP. it will, in fact, hurt them considerably with a key voting block (women voters). weakening this legislation will only hurt Republicans...and women, if this modification goes through.

No, because it will tank without bipartisan support. They can point to their own support as a shield. It is playing games with legislation, but it is about scoring points, not about the actual effect of the legislation.

Weaver95: DarwiOdrade: Forty-Two: Fark It: House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Wow. People are going to die because of this if the GOP gets their way.

But some people might abuse the system, therefore no one should have it! See also: welfare.

Yeah - never mind all the rich people and corporations that actually do abuse the tax system.

this has nothing to do with taxes or corporations...this is purely about manufactured outrage and spite towards vulnerable women.

I don't understand why the GOP is doing this. it makes no sense. it gains them nothing. but here we are just the same.

It does make some sense. It adds a provision that could tank the bill. Then they can count the bill's not passing as a victory, or they can then point to the passage WITH the adendum, as a victory as well. It is about gamesmanship.

DarwiOdrade: Forty-Two: Fark It: House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Wow. People are going to die because of this if the GOP gets their way.

But some people might abuse the system, therefore no one should have it! See also: welfare.

Yeah - never mind all the rich people and corporations that actually do abuse the tax system.

this has nothing to do with taxes or corporations...this is purely about manufactured outrage and spite towards vulnerable women.

I don't understand why the GOP is doing this. it makes no sense. it gains them nothing. but here we are just the same.

Fark It: That process is managed by a specific branch of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services based in Vermont, where officials are highly trained in secrecy and in dealing with domestic violence situations. Extreme precautions are taken to assure that the victim's identity or action is not revealed to the abuser, for obvious reasons.

The Republican bill would eliminate that confidentiality and require women to go to the closest immigration office. It would allow the officer, not specifically trained in domestic violence response, to reach out to and inform the abusive partner that the alleged victim is applying for immigration status.

House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Wow. People are going to die because of this if the GOP gets their way.

Not people, illegals. Doesn't count.

"Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is typically a bipartisan affair lacking in contention."

This is what I find so farking infuriating. It's unheard of for this bill to be used in political brinkmanship. Assholes.