Plan B Forum

Republicans will never criminalize sex inside marriage. They might decriminalize marital rape, however. A woman's body exists for the use and pleasure of men, which generally includes servitude and sex on demand. That's the future, and the not so distant past.

Every day I'm grateful I never had a daughter.

And I doubt they'd outlaw sex outside of marriage either--at least if it's really enforced. There are a lot more Trumps in the republican party than puritans. I guess we could get something like prohibition where the wealthy openly drank and everyone winked and nodded, but that's taking a chance for these "studs" .

Suggest actual reading about the bill and the reasons some people objected to the political shit-show grandstanding. And then critique this initiative:

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said during debate on the bill that Democrats’ legislation went too far and pressed for the Senate to take up a bill she introduced earlier this week.

The measure has since gained nine co-sponsors including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Steve Daines of Montana, Todd Young of Indiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, James E. Risch of Idaho and John Cornyn of Texas.

Iowa Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson plans to introduce the companion bill in the House, according to an announcement from Ernst’s office.

“With my bill, we’re ensuring women 18 and over can walk into any pharmacy, whether in Red Oak, Iowa, or Washington, D.C., and purchase a safe and effective birth control option,” Ernst said. “This Republican bill creates a priority review designation for over-the-counter birth control options to encourage the FDA to act quickly.”

Ernst said she was “encouraged” that one over-the-counter oral contraceptive has been approved and is available, but that should be “just a starting point.”

The four-page bill would encourage the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve additional over-the-counter oral contraceptives and “direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on federal funding of contraceptive methods.”

Such a bill doesn't meet the liberal test to encourage girls from 11 - 17 to become sexually active, catch diseases and obviously forces them to get pregnant. Let's have some more over the top, Chicken Little hysteria with the usual anti-Christian signalling and woe from the 0.3% of the population who are obsessed with flashing optional genitalia.

Was that a fair comment? I don't think so but it seems par for the course in this thread.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 12:57 pm

Suggest actual reading about the bill and the reasons some people objected to the political shit-show grandstanding. And then critique this initiative:

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said during debate on the bill that Democrats’ legislation went too far and pressed for the Senate to take up a bill she introduced earlier this week.

The measure has since gained nine co-sponsors including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Steve Daines of Montana, Todd Young of Indiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, James E. Risch of Idaho and John Cornyn of Texas.

Iowa Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson plans to introduce the companion bill in the House, according to an announcement from Ernst’s office.

“With my bill, we’re ensuring women 18 and over can walk into any pharmacy, whether in Red Oak, Iowa, or Washington, D.C., and purchase a safe and effective birth control option,” Ernst said. “This Republican bill creates a priority review designation for over-the-counter birth control options to encourage the FDA to act quickly.”

Ernst said she was “encouraged” that one over-the-counter oral contraceptive has been approved and is available, but that should be “just a starting point.”

The four-page bill would encourage the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve additional over-the-counter oral contraceptives and “direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on federal funding of contraceptive methods.”

Such a bill doesn't meet the liberal test to encourage girls from 11 - 17 to become sexually active, catch diseases and obviously forces them to get pregnant. Let's have some more over the top, Chicken Little hysteria with the usual anti-Christian signalling and woe from the 0.3% of the population who are obsessed with flashing optional genitalia.

Was that a fair comment? I don't think so but it seems par for the course in this thread.

Meade:

As you obviously well know, no liberal "encourages" girls from 11-17 to become sexually active or catch diseases. But in fact there are more than a few who do, and it is the "conservatives" attempting to legislate everyone else's personal morality who would force them to get pregnant because they have restricted access to contraception. With the current "liberal" contraception access policies, teen birth rates have fallen to their lowest ever. I don't know exactly what the sex education and birth control access issues are in each state, but I can't help thinking it's significant that the states with the highest teen birth rates are Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, and Texas, according to USNews.com.

Here's a link to the actual text of the Senate bill. What do you think is wrong with it? What exactly "goes too far?" Why does Joni Ernst think access to contraceptives should be limited to women over 18?

Appreciate that, Sue. I did write (referring to the Ernst bill) "such a bill obviously . . . . forces them to get pregnant" as a liberal criticism; which you confirm. The other 'liberal' criticisms of failure to encourage under-age sexual activity and consequent disease were not fair comment.

(3) RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS.—This Act applies notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).

This seems to have many knickers in a twist. One side says it threatens religious freedom; the other says it doesn't. The latter group has no explanation for calling out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act other than the obvious - it is intended to have an affect on religious freedom as it is ante billum.

I am fully supportive of women controlling their own bodies. And I suggest they begin by not doing whatever it is that causes pregnancy.

And too also it seems to be nothing whatsoever to do with alphabet people whose entire way of life is actively contraceptive.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:37 pm

Appreciate that, Sue. I did write (referring to the Ernst bill) "such a bill obviously . . . . forces them to get pregnant" as a liberal criticism; which you confirm. The other 'liberal' criticisms of failure to encourage under-age sexual activity and consequent disease were not fair comment.

(3) RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS.—This Act applies notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).

This seems to have many knickers in a twist. One side says it threatens religious freedom; the other says it doesn't. The latter group has no explanation for calling out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act other than the obvious - it is intended to have an affect on religious freedom as it is ante billum.

I am fully supportive of women controlling their own bodies. And I suggest they begin by not doing whatever it is that causes pregnancy.

And too also it seems to be nothing whatsoever to do with alphabet people whose entire way of life is actively contraceptive.

When you say things like this, you are repulsive.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 8:20 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:37 pm

I am fully supportive of women controlling their own bodies. And I suggest they begin by not doing whatever it is that causes pregnancy.

When you say things like this, you are repulsive.

As Ben Franklin put it in Poor Richard's Almanac (and as countless others did before him, including Seneca of ancient Rome and John Webster in his 1612 play, 'The White Devil'), "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
Same holds here — when you spread your legs for someone's swinging dick, you could end up pregnant.   Like the punch line to the joke about the guy whose arm hurts when he does 'this' ... Don't do that!

So I guess that makes me — along with Benj. Franklin and all these others — 'repulsive' in BSG's eyes as well...  and I'm fine with that.  I never thought my goal in life was to live it in accordance to the expectations of some stuck-up witch in Boston.

Other than some bisexuals, which LGBTQ+ people need to be concerned about getting pregnant?

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:14 pm

Other than some bisexuals, which LGBTQ+ people need to be concerned about getting pregnant?

Or as I essayed: "And too also it seems to be nothing whatsoever to do with alphabet people whose entire way of life is actively contraceptive."

Oh BSG, is it really repulsive to suggest that people who don't want to get pregnant* could perhaps refrain from doing what makes them pregnant as a first step? Wouldn't it be good if male persons didn't do that thang because they didn't want to get someone pregnant? Is there not room at all for personal responsibility and self-denial in this bloody stupid world any more?

*and please . . . I am clearly NOT speaking of victims of rape or incest (for which potential crimes, as far as I know, no woman prepares in advance by carrying a rubber around just in case).

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑
*and please . . . I am clearly NOT speaking of victims of rape or incest (for which potential crimes, as far as I know, no woman prepares in advance by carrying a rubber around just in case).

No, it’s not clear when you neglect to mention the tens of millions of women in abusive coercive relationships with no bodily autonomy, the millions of girls raped on the regular by brother, father, stepfather or uncle, the many millions of women raped every year in this country.

You don’t even mention it, except as an afterthought. You’re wallowing in misogyny and you think it’s normal and ok to sneer down your nose at women getting pregnant when THEY CANNOT GET PREGNANT UNINTENTIONALLY EXCEPT BY PARTICIPATION OF A MAN. But the men have no accountability, of course. No sneering at them.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:55 pm

Oh BSG, is it really repulsive to suggest that people who don't want to get pregnant* could perhaps refrain from doing what makes them pregnant as a first step? Wouldn't it be good if male persons didn't do that thang because they didn't want to get someone pregnant? Is there not room at all for personal responsibility and self-denial in this bloody stupid world any more?

Yes, not only is it repulsive it's just plain dumb, for the exact same reasons that have lead to unwanted pregnancies as long as there have been humans: people will have sex and you can't stop them. "Abstinence" is a joke; sexual desire is built in and hard-wired for the species. "Self-denial" may be your particular kink, but it is counter to nature; it doesn't actually make you a better person.

Moreover, it is simply not your place to stop people from having sex or to judge them or to penalize them for doing so. What business is it of yours what other people do with their bodies and each other? Your view of morality is yours to cherish, but not to impose on the rest of the citizenry; you cannot legislate others' personal morality and claim to live in a free society. And by the way, "personal responsibility" for avoiding unwanted pregnancy is in fact exactly what contraception is. Why are you so opposed to people taking responsibility to avoid the problem in the first place? Contraception is safe and effective. What is the state's compelling interest in denying it to people who want to be responsible by using it? It seems to me that society's compelling interest is exactly the opposite: avoiding unwanted pregnancy and all the social costs that go with it.

As for "calling out" RFRA (a statute of highly questionable constitutionality itself, but I digress), the intent seems to be avoiding another Hobby Lobby argument that providing access to or funding of contraception, whether through a private health plan or a publicly funded program, is not a violation of anyone's religious liberty.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 08, 2024 1:32 am

No, it’s not clear when you neglect to mention the tens of millions of women in abusive coercive relationships with no bodily autonomy, the millions of girls raped on the regular by brother, father, stepfather or uncle, the many millions of women raped every year in this country.

You don’t even mention it, except as an afterthought. You’re wallowing in misogyny and you think it’s normal and ok to sneer down your nose at women getting pregnant when THEY CANNOT GET PREGNANT UNINTENTIONALLY EXCEPT BY PARTICIPATION OF A MAN. But the men have no accountability, of course. No sneering at them.

All of which is false and grossly unfair. This discussion had nothing whatever to do with victims of criminal abuse. The subject is a political vote regarding contraception. There was no need to bring many tens of millions of sexual victims into the discussion.

Such things are terrible but not relevant to this proposed bill. If they are not autonomous and for that reason are unable to get contraceptives, this proposed bill would change nothing. If they can already get contraceptives, this bill still would do nothing for them. Don't you see? The proposed legislation has nothing whatever to do with mitigating abuse and crime.

The vote was on a potential Bill about women who DO HAVE A CHOICE in sexual relations. If any sneering is done, it is at people (not Sue) who believe that minor children should be taught that having sex is just fine, no problem, here's a pill. Women who DO have a choice can and do live with the consequences of making that choice - whether it be to use contraceptives or taking a risk or whatever. Women should have control of their own bodies. And I'm "sneering" because not having sex is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancy? Good grief, I even pointed out that I wasn't making fair comment!!!!

So for Sue,

people will have sex and you can't stop them. "Abstinence" is a joke; sexual desire is built in and hard-wired for the species. "Self-denial" may be your particular kink, but it is counter to nature; it doesn't actually make you a better person.

More fiction. I make no effort personally or politically to stop people having sex (what an odd notion). At my age, self-denial isn't much of an option, let alone a kink. And was there somewhere I expressed the idea that I am a better person? Missed that one.

More fiction.

Moreover It is simply not your place to stop people from having sex or to judge them or to penalize them for doing so

Point out where I claimed any of those things. I'll be waiting for a long time. I will point to the o.p. and one reply in particular (not mine) if you want to see control, judging and the wish for penalties.

I responded to abuse from the get-go against Republicans and people who happen to be "religious" (dog-whistle). I wrote a brief explanation of their objections to this particular bill but didn't bother to mention their claim that the bill is political grandstanding (it is) and unnecessary. We agree on why the RFRA was mentioned in the bill. Showed an alternate bill being offered by Republicans and awful religious people in favor of contraception - with that "age of 18" bit. Your critique asks for the states' compelling reason to deny to those under 18. I don't know that there is one but apparently some people do.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 08, 2024 3:34 am

If any sneering is done, it is at people (not Sue) who believe that minor children should be taught that having sex is just fine, no problem, here's a pill.

Strawman much? Literally no one -- or no one who is not a pedophile -- believes that "minor children should be taught that having sex is just fine, no problem, here's a pill." But children should be taught that sex is a natural human drive and sexual relationships are serious business to be treated in a serious manner by mature consenting adults.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 08, 2024 3:34 am

So for Sue,

people will have sex and you can't stop them. "Abstinence" is a joke; sexual desire is built in and hard-wired for the species. "Self-denial" may be your particular kink, but it is counter to nature; it doesn't actually make you a better person.

More fiction. I make no effort personally or politically to stop people having sex (what an odd notion).

And yet...

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:55 pm

Oh BSG, is it really repulsive to suggest that people who don't want to get pregnant* could perhaps refrain from doing what makes them pregnant as a first step? Wouldn't it be good if male persons didn't do that thang because they didn't want to get someone pregnant? Is there not room at all for personal responsibility and self-denial in this bloody stupid world any more?

That certainly sounds like you'd very much like people to not have sex unless they intend to get pregnant. How about if people who don't want to get pregnant, oh, I don't know, maybe use birth control? Isn't that taking personal responsibility?

The political issue is that, in a post-Dobbs world where Supreme Court justices are directly questioning the constitutional validity of Griswold v. Connecticut, right-wing activists who believe (generally as a matter of their religious faith, sorry) that life begins at conception are already laying the groundwork for restricting and eliminating contraception through their shadow GOP platform, "Project 2025." If you have forgotten, we were assured by Supreme Court justices at their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was "settled law." That was a lie. You may call it grandstanding, but at this point in our national life it is worthwhile to get politicians on record what their position on reproductive rights and healthcare actually is, so that voters can make an appropriate choice in November.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 08, 2024 3:34 am

Your critique asks for the states' compelling reason to deny to those under 18. I don't know that there is one but apparently some people do.

I know principles of constitutional adjudication like precedent and stare decisis don't mean shit to the majority on the current Court, but it used to be the case that regulating citizens' most personal decisions of life, sex and health was justified solely by a compelling state interest that outweighs the individual's right (hence the Roe framework of "fetal viability," where two "lives" are theoretically in equipoise.) There is absolutely no compelling state interest in denying birth control to those under 18, when it is uncontested that younger teens are, shocking as it seems, sometimes exploring sex. Even more problematic is that the justification being proposed to ban contraception (except for men, of course!) is the purely religious notion that "life begins at conception," coupled with a counterfactual claim that contraceptives work by "inducing abortions." I have seen what's happened in the short two years since Dobbs. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this could go.

Strawman much? Literally no one -- or no one who is not a pedophile -- believes that "minor children should be taught that having sex is just fine, no problem, here's a pill."

That's naive. There are extremists for any position and I've spoken to non-pedophile (AFAIK) radical women who believe exactly that. I don't hang around only in holy corners muttering psalms to calm my nerves,

But children should be taught that sex is a natural human drive and sexual relationships are serious business to be treated in a serious manner by mature consenting adults.

Quite right. Surely you don't imply it should be treated frivolously by immature consenting minors? Of course you are not. But you seem (seem) to agree that "mature" and "adult" are key words.

That certainly sounds like you'd very much like people to not have sex unless they intend to get pregnant.

Well, that's a rather different statement than "people will have sex and you can't stop them" and "Moreover It is simply not your place to stop people from having sex or to judge them or to penalize them for doing so".

OK - no. I would not "like people to not have sex unless they intend to get pregnant". That's just silly. I am suggesting that women who DON'T want to get pregnant (and let's remember this was in the context of the Ernst bill that supported contraception for mature, consenting adults) could try not having sex as a first step to avoidance. I also objected to male persons who take sexual pleasure with blatant disregard for consequences. And even the enthusiastic rubber-wearers don't seem to know that they fail 3% of the time. Would one travel on an airline whose planes crash 3 times out of every 100 flights? I think there's a great need for that education you speak of.

How about if people who don't want to get pregnant, oh, I don't know, maybe use birth control? Isn't that taking personal responsibility?

Did you find where I opposed available contraception? I have concerns about how children are taught - but so do you. I think the political grand-standing bill (produced by the Dems in the same spirit in which the Reps sank the immigration bill) is unnecessary. You and I apparently judge a bit differently.

But we do judge, eh?

And the never-ending assault against the bodies of millions upon millions of . . . oh! Never mind!

Georgia GOP leaders look to protect IVF as Supreme Court upholds abortion pill use

Georgia House Speaker Jon Burns vowed Thursday to protect the use of in vitro fertilization, a process often used for families struggling with infertility.

His announcement came the day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to continue to allow the use of medication that induces abortion nearly two years after overturning the 1973 court decision that guaranteed a constitutional right to the procedure.

The Texas Supreme Court has declined to take up a major in vitro fertilization case that could have potentially upended access to the procedure.

The justices allowed a lower court’s opinion to stand, and, for now, sidestepped the question of whether a frozen embryo has the same rights as a living child in post-Dobbs Texas.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats’ attempts to bolster reproductive rights failed again Thursday when Republicans blocked a bill guaranteeing access to in vitro fertilization from moving forward.

The 48-47 procedural vote came just one day after Republicans tried unsuccessfully to pass their own IVF access bill (blocked by Democrats) and one week after GOP senators prevented legislation from advancing that would have bolstered protections for access to contraception. Senate rules require 60 votes to proceed on most legislation.

See, see. . .

Yet this week the Southern Baptist Convention chose to officially declare IVF is an act of defiance against God's will. Thus every good Christian will do whatever is necessary to end IVF.

snailgate.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:21 am

Yet this week the Southern Baptist Convention chose to officially declare IVF is an act of defiance against God's will. Thus every good Christian will do whatever is necessary to end IVF.

snailgate.

1. Snail - day late, dollar short. BSG posted the Guardian link already with that story.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention is of relevance only to Southern Baptist members (and not all of them give a shoot, I bet).

3. So don't go around insulting "every good Christian" thank you.