If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com) divider line 374
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4856 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-03 11:48:58 AM

Tricky Chicken: I (this is purely just me now) think the state is responsible for providing a generally safe environment for people to live in.  that would include protecting us from crime.  If you are the victim of a crime, you should be made whole.  If there is a crime of violence against your person, you should be made whole to the best extent possible, to include healthcare and counselling.

If it is a property crime, that should be handled with property insurance. But I don't think you could possibly consider rape a property crime.


Well, I also certainly wouldn't consider rape a property crime. If the government is going to make everyone whole when they are the victim of a crime then why stop at crimes against my person? Why shouldn't I be made whole if I come home from work and my house has been robbed and vandalized. Why should I be forced into bankruptcy just because I hadn't purchased insurance on my home or property? If property crimes can be handled with property insurance why not expect that crimes resulting in bodily injury be handled with health insurance? I just don't see why there would be a distinction. If we started doing one it would only be a matter of time before we were also doing the other. I think we should let people's personal insurance handle both, but if we're going to do one then we might as well go all in.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:29 AM

parasol: I hope the GOP can survive an increase of women in "power" positions.

I've never really understood militant feminism - but after yesterday's really ugly annual check-up and the on-going hateful right-wing focus on women and reproductive health (combined with some posts here on FARK) I am beginning to get it.

Continuing attempts to make restrictive/absurd/expensive laws regarding women will result in more vocal, politically active women - and they will all be called ""feminazis"


Congratulations.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:31 AM

Snatch Bandergrip: You know, both sides are, in fact, bad, despite how that overly simplistic argument gets rightfully shot down here on Fark.

Democrats and Republicans both have a long-standing history of being utterly, insanely wrong on matters of economy, the military, social justice, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it.

BUT

There is only one party that has an appallingly glib, morally confused, utterly repugnant stance on what is arguably the ugliest act one human can perform on another.

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

The comments in the above link are not isolated incidents.  They are not taken out of context.  They are a clear, consistent pattern of dangerously hateful rhetoric.

1 in 3 women are victims of sexual abuse.  No matter who you are, you know victims of sexual abuse.  Many of the women in your life, whom you love and care about, have had to endure an unspeakably heinous invasion of their body and by extension, their minds, souls, and lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

And anyone that is flippant, confused, or ambivalent to this awful act and its consequences, I would assess as ignorant and callous to a sociopathic degree.

Democrats suck, there's no denying that.  But I vote for them because the alternative is, quite literally, the Pro Rape Party.


Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:33 AM

vudukungfu: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.

they aren't much different than the Musims who would rape a woman, then stone her for "adultery"
GOP will rape them, then slut-shame them, and deny them birth control.


and then cut off SNAP to the child once born?
 
2013-12-03 11:49:54 AM

Mrbogey: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

The whole purpose of insurance is to cover for unplanned events that have a possible (though unlikely) chance of happening. It's not illogical. It's just you don't understand the definitions of the things you argue about.

Same reason why some people, including cops, carry weapons. They know they won't use them 99.99% of the time but that 0.01% when they do use them, it'll be very important. It's not that they plan on shooting someone. It's insurance.


There is one tiny flaw in your premise
The GOP has been actively working to deny women birth control. This has been the "insurance to cover for unplanned events" women have used for quite some time (let us say the 70's for Fark sake)

Am I to assume that, lacking insurance coverage for birth control, women will take out "rape insurance" to cover terminations that are increasingly difficult in red states to obtain?

That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.
 
2013-12-03 11:51:08 AM
Is being in prison considered a preexisting condition when determining rape insurance premiums?
 
2013-12-03 11:51:37 AM

Mercutio74: Warlordtrooper: Well men are on the hook for support so it isn't fair to say they have no interest in this topic

I'm not sure a civil obligation gets you a seat at a table where basic human rights are being discussed.  That being said, I don't even think women should get a seat at a discussion where we're talking about forcing someone to do something with their bodies without an extremely good reason.  That should just, by default, be a decision one individual gets to make about their own body purely on the virtue that they're a human being and that we value human rights.


Exactly this.  Why a women should have any more say in another woman's pregnancy than a man always seems ridiculous to me.
 
2013-12-03 11:51:46 AM

sdd2000: vudukungfu: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.

they aren't much different than the Musims who would rape a woman, then stone her for "adultery"
GOP will rape them, then slut-shame them, and deny them birth control.

and then cut off SNAP to the child once born?


Food grubbing parasite doesn't need SNAP til the umbilical cord is cut. Or the placenta dries up but if you've waited that long, ewwwww
 
2013-12-03 11:52:58 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Is being in prison considered a preexisting condition when determining rape insurance premiums?



No. But being Catholic...
 
2013-12-03 11:54:31 AM

mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 650x475]


Glad I wasnt the only one thinking that.
 
2013-12-03 11:54:34 AM

SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


Bareefer Obonghit: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


Awesome!
 
2013-12-03 11:54:50 AM

parasol: The GOP has been actively working to deny women birth control. This has been the "insurance to cover for unplanned events" women have used for quite some time (let us say the 70's for Fark sake)


Exactly.

We have "rape insurance." It's called birth control pills and Plan B. But the GOP has been trying to restrict access to birth control and Plan B, because reasons. So they remove a woman's ability to easily get pregnancy prevention medicine and then the GOP turns around and makes it even more difficult to get an abortion. It's not about preventing abortion. If it was, the GOP would be handing out birth control pills like candy. It's really about controlling women.

We won't let you get birth control.
We won't let you get an abortion.
And we sure as hell won't help you pay for that kid you accidentally made.
 
2013-12-03 11:54:53 AM

pueblonative: How about rapist insurance.  Every individual of legal age has to purchase rape insurance in the event that they rape somebody, there will be a payout to the person raped for expenses?  And so as not to offend the free market Repubs, we'll allow price discrimination. j


I like that idea.   For every decade that you manage to live your life w/o raping someone you get a discount.  Let's employ free market solutions.
 
2013-12-03 11:55:37 AM

Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?

Actually, many states do have a fund to compensate victims of violent crime.  It is usually underfunded and it takes a long time to receive any money.   Obviously, proof of the crime must be provided and that can be a difficult hurdle especially for traumatized victims.


What do they do when both parties are at fault for an assault?  Lets say you and I are in a bar drinking heavily.  We get into an argument about how euclidian geometry changes the shot angles when you move from a six foot pool table to an eight foot pool table.  The situation escalates, and we come to blows.  Now since I am clearly a lover and not a fighter, I get soundly thrashed and now require medical attention.

Now clearly I participated in the situation and I am equally to blame. I don't think a state should cover my expenses in that situation.

Just to be clear, none of this applies to rape...

But if the state pays for all the medical expenses related to rape, would there be an incentive for a woman that finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to claim date rape after the fact to get an abortion?  I haven't noodled my way through that one.  But in a single payer system that wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-12-03 11:56:19 AM
OK, I know this little thought experiment has been done to death (pun) over and over, but let's try it one more time:

To all "Pro-life GOP" out there:

A woman attempts to get birth control.  Is denied because of religious reasons.  She gets raped.  Gets pregnant.  If she carries the baby to term, she will die, and most likely the baby will, too.  If she aborts the baby, the baby will die. The woman wants to have a large family when she gets married, so to let her die is to let all her potential children die, too.  (life begins before conception, right?)

So which carries more weight and allows you to convince yourself that you're still 'pro-life'?

(Too distracted to think of a way to work a gun into this scenario, because pro-lifers are equally conflicted about that point, too)
 
2013-12-03 11:56:32 AM

Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


Yeah, no kidding.
 
2013-12-03 11:58:10 AM

skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.


I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?
 
2013-12-03 11:58:44 AM
skullkrusher:

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

Isn't it awful how often these Democrats bring up rape?
 
2013-12-03 12:01:11 PM

A Cave Geek: OK, I know this little thought experiment has been done to death (pun) over and over, but let's try it one more time:

To all "Pro-life GOP" out there:

A woman attempts to get birth control.  Is denied because of religious reasons.  She gets raped. She buys a gun in case it happens again. Gets pregnant.  If she carries the baby to term, she will die, and most likely the baby will, too.  If she aborts the baby, the baby will die. The woman wants to have a large family and will have to hunt game in order to feed them when she gets married, so to let her die is to let all her potential gun-owning-but-for-hunting-only children die, too.  (life begins before conception, right?)

So which carries more weight and allows you to convince yourself that you're still 'pro-life'?

(Too distracted to think of a way to work a gun into this scenario, because pro-lifers are equally conflicted about that point, too)



That work for you? ;)
 
2013-12-03 12:01:23 PM

whistleridge: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 650x475]

Lol. I never would have noticed if you hadn't said anything.

Um...at least she doesn't have a camel toe? In fact, she appears to have undergone Type III excision.


Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production.  Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad.  Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule.  In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively.  Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube.  But no ball hang.  That's nasty.  The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".
 
2013-12-03 12:02:18 PM

whistleridge: I_C_Weener: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.

True.

However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance. 

It's a slightly hyperbolic term, but it only works because there's a large amount of truth behind it.


It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.
 
2013-12-03 12:03:44 PM
I say we make everyone take a physiological and a physical exam every year and break out their strength and weaknesses into comparable charts and graphs.  Then compare them to the rest of the population to determine whom should or should pay more in insurance, what their career should be, who they should marry, and determine if any restrictions to rights and privileges are needed.

Then control and manipulate an "uprising" that will never be.  This will be used as a sort of blow off valve for the minority unhappy x factor.

/There.  Utopia solved.
 
2013-12-03 12:04:09 PM

MadHatter500: Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production. Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad. Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule. In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively. Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube. But no ball hang. That's nasty. The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".


Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.
 
2013-12-03 12:04:22 PM

Mike Chewbacca: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

It's actually less than 18%. However it is overwhelmingly poor women who get abortions, and from a mathematical point of view, every aborted impoverished fetus is one less mouth we taxpayers have to feed and clothe.


That is total abortions.  What about elective abortions?

I wouldn't look at any abortions related to protecting the health of the mother.   Those should not be considered as abortions which can be avoided.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:08 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?


By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:13 PM

Bennie Crabtree: whistleridge: I_C_Weener: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.

True.

However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance. 

It's a slightly hyperbolic term, but it only works because there's a large amount of truth behind it.

It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.


Abortion coverage is apparently already a matter for insurance. The bill is just severing it from standard plans.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:13 PM

Mercutio74: Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.


"How to Vajazzle for unexpected company"
 
2013-12-03 12:05:52 PM

Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.



Yowza.
t.fod4.com
 
2013-12-03 12:06:23 PM

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


Vasectomy is a minimally invasive procedure with short recovery times.  Done on an outpatient basis.  Ie. it's damn cheap to do.  Getting one's tubes tied is a bit more complex and costly.  One needs an understanding of accountancy to comprehend insurance.  Medical knowledge only gets in the way.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:00 PM

Tigger: skullkrusher:

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

Isn't it awful how often these Democrats bring up rape?


Seriously. Got rape on the branes, 24/7
 
2013-12-03 12:07:27 PM

parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.


So, rape is an act of God?
 
2013-12-03 12:07:40 PM

Mercutio74: MadHatter500: Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production. Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad. Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule. In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively. Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube. But no ball hang. That's nasty. The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".

Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.


We could found an island nation and fend off economic ruin long enough to collapse into civil war.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:47 PM

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.


How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:52 PM

Tricky Chicken: Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?

Actually, many states do have a fund to compensate victims of violent crime.  It is usually underfunded and it takes a long time to receive any money.   Obviously, proof of the crime must be provided and that can be a difficult hurdle especially for traumatized victims.

What do they do when both parties are at fault for an assault?  Lets say you and I are in a bar drinking heavily.  We get into an argument about how euclidian geometry changes the shot angles when you move from a six foot pool table to an eight foot pool table.  The situation escalates, and we come to blows.  Now since I am clearly a lover and not a fighter, I get soundly thrashed and now require medical attention.

Now clearly I participated in the situation and I am equally to blame. I don't think a state should cover my expenses in that situation.

Just to be clear, none of this applies to rape...

But if the state pays for all the medical expenses related to rape, would there be an incentive for a woman that finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to claim date rape after the fact to get an abortion?  I haven't noodled my way through that one.  But in a single payer system that wouldn't be an issue.


You are asking questions that I don't know the answer to.  I live in Ohio and I knew someone who the victim of a horrible sexual assault and stabbing.  She was trying to get some money from the vic comp fund to help her with rent because she couldn't work (as a waitress) when she was recovering from her wounds.   I can't even begin to describe the mental anguish that she was in so some relief from the threat of being evicted would have helped a lot.
She only received a small amount of money (a couple thousand) and it was years later.  We're not talking about medical expenses, but money to help out with all things like therapy, rent, cab fare - kind of like an AFLAC policy for crime victims.
 
2013-12-03 12:08:54 PM
Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.

/Rs might have had a chance in 2014 with people forgetting about the shutdown, but they just can't keep their mouths shut!
 
2013-12-03 12:09:51 PM

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.


again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.
 
2013-12-03 12:10:31 PM

Peki: Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.

/Rs might have had a chance in 2014 with people forgetting about the shutdown, but they just can't keep their mouths shut!


Onward Christian soldiers.
 
2013-12-03 12:10:54 PM
So the ACA putting mandates on insurance companies shouldn't bother the GOP.  After all, this is exactly what they are doing here.
 
2013-12-03 12:11:09 PM

Needlessly Complicated: What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


I was more aghast at the weird proportions created by looking at the 2 images as one.

Flo is cute. The bottom half obviously has a killer body. I'd take both home.
 
2013-12-03 12:12:07 PM

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: I (this is purely just me now) think the state is responsible for providing a generally safe environment for people to live in.  that would include protecting us from crime.  If you are the victim of a crime, you should be made whole.  If there is a crime of violence against your person, you should be made whole to the best extent possible, to include healthcare and counselling.

If it is a property crime, that should be handled with property insurance. But I don't think you could possibly consider rape a property crime.

Well, I also certainly wouldn't consider rape a property crime. If the government is going to make everyone whole when they are the victim of a crime then why stop at crimes against my person? Why shouldn't I be made whole if I come home from work and my house has been robbed and vandalized. Why should I be forced into bankruptcy just because I hadn't purchased insurance on my home or property? If property crimes can be handled with property insurance why not expect that crimes resulting in bodily injury be handled with health insurance? I just don't see why there would be a distinction. If we started doing one it would only be a matter of time before we were also doing the other. I think we should let people's personal insurance handle both, but if we're going to do one then we might as well go all in.


I can see that the state has some responsibility to protect you from property crime as well.  But I personally see a huge difference between a property crime and any crime against your person.  But I have funny concepts of ownership and posession.  Your body is entirely yours, and anything I do to affect it should require your consent.  If I touch you, or hinder your movement, or threaten your health or psyche, these are all immediate impacts to my person.  If you were to right now knock my house down, I would not even be aware of it for hours.  Now lets say that before the end of the day my boss sends me on a business trip to North Korea.  While there I fall for a woman and renounce my citizenship and stay there.  I may well never know that you knocked my house down and will never feel that a crime was comitted. Likewise, you could hack into my 401K and drain all my assets.  If I pass away tomorrow, your crime would be just a number on a spreadsheet.  In fact, if your house is on fire and your family is inside and I have a fire extinguisher, I think your need trumps my property rights.

I can be made whole for just about any crime against my property, and therefore I should take the responsibility to insure those items that I hold valuable.  I cannot have insurance against a crime against my person because if injured, I cannot be made truely whole.  I do however rely upon the assurances of the state that they will do all they can to prevent crimes against my person.
 
2013-12-03 12:12:08 PM

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


No - and denial of insurance coverage is certainly the work of man
 
2013-12-03 12:13:19 PM
skullkrusher:

maxheck: Dear GOP:

Is it really that difficult to *NOT* mention rape for just one day? It never does you any favors.

Hedly Lamarr isn't recruiting today.

Female Dem talking about rape here


I'm just gonna guess here, and perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption, much like assuming the Tea Party votes Republican. But she's talking about legislation proposed by "Right to Life of Michigan."
 
2013-12-03 12:13:55 PM
Bottom line for the GOP:  The more they talk, the less electable they are.  You want the GOP to go down in 2014?  Keep them talking.
 
2013-12-03 12:14:16 PM
Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.
 
2013-12-03 12:14:51 PM

Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate.


It's also a reasonable line of attack.  Michigan attempted to pass this same bill long ago and even their ridiculously right leaning governor Rick Snyder vetoed it saying not allowing rape victims to keep coverage goes too far.  Republicans had the opportunity to simply write a bill to allow an exception for rape victims and Rick Snyder would have presumably signed it.  They didn't, they're trying to override his veto.

 That's why it's fully reasonable to attack Republicans on the rape issue.  They were specifically told to make accommodations for rape victims and they specifically chose not to.
 
2013-12-03 12:15:25 PM

Ned Stark: We could found an island nation and fend off economic ruin long enough to collapse into civil war.


Judging by this tab alone, we'd begin in a state of civil war... and for some reason, we'd all love it.
 
2013-12-03 12:17:23 PM
There already IS rape insurance:

planbonestep.com

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not already there.

And stop trying to shove the whole of government up some woman's vajaja.  It doesn't fit.
 
2013-12-03 12:18:00 PM

Peki: Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.


You're the real rapist for pointing that out.

See, this stupid libtard Demorat is attacking the most offensive aspect of the Republican bill, that even abortions due to rape shouldn't be covered. But since most abortions aren't due to rape, that makes her the real rapist, and you, and me, and all of us who decry Republican attitudes on rape.

/ rape rape rape rape rape
// any woman who votes Republican is out of her f*cking mind
 
2013-12-03 12:18:32 PM

Parthenogenetic: Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.


I smiled, I nodded, my eyes got teary
four-and-a-half stars

....don't forget denial as "we are unable to offer this service, please see a specialist"
 
2013-12-03 12:18:36 PM

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


That is what Santorum and a few others have said that exact statement.
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report