Wisconsin Votes For Abstinence - ???

I read this article weveral times, and I am not sure I get it..It sounds like the state can decide 1) what kind of insurance private firms can sell and 2) what the schools should teach.
?

Wisconsin Votes For Abstinence-Only Education, Against Insurance Covering Abortions

Early Wednesday morning Wisconsin lawmakers voted to overturn the Health Youth Act and to ban private insurance plans from covering abortion. And so the war on women marches on.

The Healthy Youth Act required that all sexual education classes taught in Wisconsin schools be medically-accurate, age appropriate, and use evidence-based strategies to reduce teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Instead, Wisconsin youth will be subject to abstinence-only or abstinence-centered sex education and will require schools apply for federal funds for abstinence programming.

The insurance ban passed will eliminate coverage for abortion services in Wisconsin even if a woman is using her own dollars to buy private insurance. The insurance ban will affect private insurance plans operating in the state exchange set up under the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans in the state insist these measures are not designed to punish women but instead re-assert “local control” over such things as insurance plans and sex education. So much like “states rights” is code for resisting desegregation and affirmative action, “local control” is now code for embracing a theocratic approach to statewide governance.

http://www.care2.com/causes/wisconsi...abortions.html

And once more the Rethuglicans show that their primary concern is in what you do in your bedroom. They seem to have an inordinate amount of interest in whether or not people enjoy sex: they want to make sure that teens won't understand the ramifications of sex: and they want to make sure that women, especially, will pay the price for any sexual pleasure they might have.

Assholes. I hope the citizens remember come November just who wants to be looking into their bedrooms.

As poor a performance at Obama has shown for the most partthe last 4 years, I gringe to think what wil happen to us if the Replicans regain control of the White House
Not to mention since day 1 of the Primary Season, withEVERY Priamry and all the Caucuses, I donot believe ANY of the Candicates either from the beginnig or up to now has ever had a 51+ majority of either Votes or Causes Victories, do not rmember to many Primary in the past when NOBODY got at least 51+% of the Votes wil make fora very intersting November Election.
Do you for the"The Dead Man Walking" or the Executioner?? Not much choice, the Republicans could verywell loosei n November and Obama wins by Default
Between the 2 Paries, so you want gorssly overcooked and dried eggs or severly burnt toast for breakfast, niether is very appealing

My opinion is that it's basically a three-way race. Obama on one side and Romney and Santorum on the other. If Romney gets the nod, he just MIGHT have a shot at beating Obama. If Santorum takes the nomination, Obama's a shoe-in. Aside from the real hard-core fundie idiots, I doubt he would swing more than a handful of centrist voters, and might not even be able to hold onto the less demented of the Right. We might well see the destruction of the Republican party if Santorum takes the nomination. Every time he opens his mouth, masses of female voters flock to the other side.

I would rather see Obama or Romney, with a divided Congress and Senate, than an incarnation of Nehemiah Scudder.

It will also be interesting to see how well (or poorly, I hope) the current crop of Republican legislators, both national and state levels, manage to survive the elections after the massive doses of anti-everything legislation they've been vomiting around the country. If they can destroy the rights of anyone they don't happen to agree with and still get reelected, I think it's time to find a new home. Preferably somewhere far away from Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I read this article weveral times, and I am not sure I get it..It sounds like the state can decide 1) what kind of insurance private firms can sell and 2) what the schools should teach.

---

Of course the state decides what happens in the schools it funds, staffs and oversees! As for insurance - yes, I think all states have coverage mandates and other regulation: not allowed to charge more than X, can't discriminate based on Y, must cover Z. Nothing unprecedented there.

As a Wisconsinite I can give a more upclose and personal observation:
This " Abstinence " issue is something that the Republicans in the state have to do to keep the insurance corps "donating" for their campaigns.
Most Wisconsinites look at the Republican party as an whore whose wares are getting a bit to old to be attractive.
The recall election's have already made one Senator who was up for recall resign and I have a feeling there will be several more resignations before June 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

The recall election's have already made one Senator who was up for recall resign and I have a feeling there will be several more resignations before June 5.

---

This is good to hear. Maybe it will make legislators think more about what the people really need and want instead of what they can force the people to take while the politicians line their own pockets. And maybe it will show the theocrats that the American people aren't interested in a revival of the Inquisition.

Quote:

---

This " Abstinence " issue is something that the Republicans in the state have to do to keep the insurance corps "donating" for their campaigns.

---

I don't understand this. What does abstinence have to do with insurance? Telling kids not to have sex is like telling them not to breathe. How does that help the insurance companies? Instead of paying a few bucks a month for contraceptives, they wind up paying for higher rates of pregnancies, and putting more kids on assistance programs. No, from everything I've seen, this abstinence crap is strictly fundamentalist garbage which has been shown not to work.

I sure as heck did not vote for that. I'm against abstinence. Except for Republicans, they should quit reproducing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

As a Wisconsinite I can give a more upclose and personal observation:
This " Abstinence " issue is something that the Republicans in the state have to do to keep the insurance corps "donating" for their campaigns.
Most Wisconsinites look at the Republican party as an whore whose wares are getting a bit to old to be attractive.
The recall election's have already made one Senator who was up for recall resign and I have a feeling there will be several more resignations before June 5.

---

Thanks for the info :-)

It would be WONDERFULL if the Republicans would concentrate MORE on Ending the WAr, The Economy, Gas Prices, Jobs and WOEEY less about what 2 xconseting Adults do in their Bedroom, it would also be great if they would allow PARENTS to teach their kids about Birth Control instead of the Schools
BTW, their is a Bill pending there also that wil dicate what color shirts Men can wear to work and what type of outfis Woemns can wear during the day

Excellent point StrictMaster,
Santorum has really stuck his ding dong in the blender when he again stated he was so against Pornography. I pointed out how big a business it is ect, but remember this is a totally off the track Republican who is so self-rightous he forgets he has to serve as well as lead.
Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Excellent point StrictMaster,
Santorum has really stuck his ding dong in the blender when he again stated he was so against Pornography. I pointed out how big a business it is ect, but remember this is a totally off the track Republican who is so self-rightous he forgets he has to serve as well as lead.
Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

---

Stealth694,
1 thing I failed ot mention and it a PROVEN stat that those who strognly oppsoe Pornography, those against ADult Movies, Book Stores etc, are generaly the 1st to cater to them when they open in a New Neighborhood, they tend to waitt in line til they open
I rembmer many. many years back I wentto my 1st POrn Film at a Theatre and while I waited in line i could not help but notice a number of Men wear trench coats waiting as well, and altho I did not carei f they wer flashers etc, the weather did warrant the coats, but what was interesting is 3 of the 5 men waiting had WHITE COLLARS around their necks and no they were NOT from White Dress Shirts
The Church needs to put more emphisis (like yhey ever wil) towadrs solving the issue of Child Melistation etc and worry FAR lesss about banning POrn or their Stand on Controception. The easiest way the y couldsolve this problem is to allow Priets to Marry but I do not wantto Highjack this thread over that issue which is a thread in and of itself
Santorium scares me like nobody else I ever heard speak
Let get back to basic,what wil he do for Jobs, The Ecomomy, The War, Gas Prices etc lets fight that befoe we start being intrusive into the lives of CONSENTING ADIULTS over 21
If someone does like what they see on TV the change the channel, there are no Laws that you must buy POrn etc You may agree withtheir lifestyle but as consenting adult they should be allowedi n our free society to do and watchwhat they want

1 other thing on Pornography, it has bee naround long enough that Studios know what they can and can not do, they may come close to breaking the law but never realy have
And most not all but most Studios are owned and operated by Women or the Magority of their emplyess are, nobody forced these women into the business, the went into it for what ever the reason and if they are adults thats all that matter
You don't like PORN DON"T WATCH IT, DON'T BUY It don't cater to the Business but don't infringe on the rigts of conseting adults in the privacy of their own home to do so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

---

There's more to it than that. Just as there are sound medical reasons for abortions (fetus badly deformed, or deceased, or for the health of the mother, or for rape) there are sound medical reasons for women to use birth control pills (endometriosis, excessive cramping, etc.) The "fall out" comes from religious nuts who want to control women's reproductive rights, who want to prevent any kind of premarital sex, who want to move everyone in the country back to the 1st century when you could be stoned for adultery.

I would have no problems with the government, state or federal, paying for birth control pills or abortions for such medical reasons. I can see no valid reason for insurance companies NOT to include birth control pills in their medical coverage. Should self-insured religious groups be forced to provide such insurance? I see no valid, medical reason why they should not. If their employees are members of that church, then they won't make use of them anyway, right? And if they are not, the church has no right to impose its beliefs upon non-members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

those who strognly oppsoe Pornography, those against ADult Movies, Book Stores etc, are generaly the 1st to cater to them when they open in a New Neighborhood

---

Statistics show that those states which have the highest proportion of religious citizens, which tend to vote Republican more often than not, are the highest consumers of pornography in the US. I believe that Utah ranks #1. So once again we see that the churches are trying to force people to follow rules which the people don't want.

Quote:

---

1 other thing on Pornography, it has bee naround long enough

---

LOL! Pornography has been around since the first men started drawing women with mammoth breasts on the walls of caves! You can never eliminate pornography. All they can do is drive it underground, where it will still flourish, especially among the wealthy assholes who had it banned in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

... the first men started drawing women with mammoth breasts on the walls of caves!

---

Bestiality-porn? *grin*

Dumb move by Santorum, I agree: to a large extent the crackdown he apparently wants legally can't happen (that pesky freedom of speech stuff) and even if it did, it would be a terrible mess. Fortunately, it seems that's academic anyway: he's pretty much out of the race already, even if he hasn't made it official yet.

Apprently the Church feels it has the Right to force it's belifs on EVERYONE and ANYONE
I might add to tha it was on the Cable News today, there apprently isa Bill pending in the Huose, which wil never be approved in a Million years, but if it is anddoes, it will eliminate the Sepration of CHruch and State, guess who is behind this bill??

The highly confusing thing about much of this seems to be that these people are not so much pro-life as anti-sex!

And in this, the religious Right and the radical (=fundamentalistic) feminists are once again - well - in bed together.
Or in other words, the absolute most LOUD people there are, as far as I can see, if only because they seem to get so much press time and space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

The highly confusing thing about much of this seems to be that these people are not so much pro-life as anti-sex!

---

They are no more "pro-life" than someone who is pro-choice being "pro-death". These people are pro-BIRTH! Once the child is born they don't really give a damn about it. They don't want to provide medical care for babies, or nutritional aid, or anything else once they are born.

In essence, they are all anti-woman. If we were able to arrange things so that MEN would have to carry the children, and undergo the risks involved with pregnancy and birth, and deal with the problems of raising the children afterwards, things would change very quickly, I'm sure. That's why I like to imagine someone adding legislation to all these anti-woman laws they keep trying to pass which would make the fathers culpable, requiring DNA matching to determine paternity and making the fathers financially liable for both the child and the mother while she is unable to work.

But see, to these people, it isn't the man who couldn't keep his dick in his pants who's responsible. It's only the evil women who are cursed by god and have to suffer for it. Humbug!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

They are no more "pro-life" than someone who is pro-choice being "pro-death". These people are pro-BIRTH! Once the child is born they don't really give a damn about it. They don't want to provide medical care for babies, or nutritional aid, or anything else once they are born.

---

You have a point.
I am reminded of the outraged citizens in cases of alleged children abuse, where, once the child is taken away, no one cares one whit what becomes of them.

Quote:

---

In essence, they are all anti-woman. If we were able to arrange things so that MEN would have to carry the children, and undergo the risks involved with pregnancy and birth, and deal with the problems of raising the children afterwards, things would change very quickly, I'm sure. That's why I like to imagine someone adding legislation to all these anti-woman laws they keep trying to pass which would make the fathers culpable, requiring DNA matching to determine paternity and making the fathers financially liable for both the child and the mother while she is unable to work.

But see, to these people, it isn't the man who couldn't keep his dick in his pants who's responsible. It's only the evil women who are cursed by god and have to suffer for it. Humbug!

---

Your points are good.