Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Kansas Lawmaker Says Women Should Plan Ahead For Rape: "I Have A Spare Tire"

   
Author Topic: Kansas Lawmaker Says Women Should Plan Ahead For Rape: "I Have A Spare Tire"
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kansas Lawmaker Says Women Should Plan Ahead For Rape: ‘I Have A Spare Tire’

The anti-choice tidal wave stemming from the 2010 elections has produced nearly 1,000 anti-choice bills this year alone. When Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) took office last year, he called on the state legislature to create “a culture of life” and, in the last 15 minutes of their annual session, they delivered. The Republican majority passed a law to ban insurance companies from offering abortion coverage in their general health plans, except when a woman’s life is at risk.

However, one pro-choice Republican, state Rep. Barbara Bollier, feared that Republicans were cutting off “a way for women to cover the cost of terminating pregnancies” — particularly when they’re unintended. During the House debate, she “questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.” But state Rep. Pete DeGraaf (R) was ready with a shocking retort. DeGraaf said women should plan ahead for situations such as rape because, after all, “I have a spare tire on my car“:

quote:
During the House’s debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told [Bollier]: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”

Bollier asked him, “And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?”

DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, “I have spare tire on my car.”

“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”

DeGraaf’s belief that women should plan and prepare for their own rape is more than groan-worthy, it’s woefully out-of-touch. As Jezebel’s Margaret Hartmann notes, DeGraaf is basically telling sexual assault victims that “the state isn’t AAA” so a Kansas woman is responsible for the consequences of her attacker. And by comparing it to life insurance, DeGraaf goes further to insinuate that rape is as inevitable as death.

Unfortunately, this Boy Scout dismissal of rape and incest victims is as galling as it is common among the GOP. More and more Republican lawmakers are adopting the Sharron Angle “make lemonade” attitude towards pregnancies resulting from rape. This year, one Indiana lawmaker even suggested that women would fake their own rapes to secure an abortion procedure.

“There’s clearly a message here that women are dispensable,” said Kansas state Rep. Annie Kuether (D).”I’m sick and tired of being treated like a second-class citizen.”

I read all this in the aftermath of Ben Stein's Dominique Strauss-Kahn defense, and I figure it should be brought up because, well, oh god.
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait where is Ben Stein's defence of SK? What?!

edit: NVM found it. Thx anyway.

Posts: 14191 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/ben_stein_strauss-kahn.php

I never really thought Stein would top how numbingly stupid he was in Expelled, but this did it.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the article:

quote:
How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?
So what he's saying is that only young men over six feet are capable of rape, rapes only happen in the middle of nowhere, and that no real rape victim would ever be able to report the crime - you should assume that any woman who can say she has been raped is lying. Especially if she's poor.

Wow.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ben Stein: runs a great game show, but is actually a substantial douchebag, at least when it comes to politics.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is eternally ruined for me. Atleast I can step away from all these horrible celebrities and go see that movie about a man and his beaver hand puppet.

But on the honest side, the idea that this could be due to "have nots vs. the haves" makes me paranoid as a have not. A rich man rapes a woman, another rich man claims the rich man is being framed for being rich, as if mere presence of wealth is innocence in all cases.

Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the dude's apparently a pastor.
Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:

But on the honest side, the idea that this could be due to "have nots vs. the haves" makes me paranoid as a have not. A rich man rapes a woman, another rich man claims the rich man is being framed for being rich, as if mere presence of wealth is innocence in all cases.

It is not unusual for wealth to be seen as a sign of merit and poverty a sign of fault.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Ben Stein: runs a great game show, but is actually a substantial douchebag, at least when it comes to politics.

politics, religion, arts, modern culture, and science!

It's kind of a track, too. With each passing year he's gotten more and more completely daffy to the extent that most of his contracted appearances and product hawkings have vanished

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Use clear-eyes, to have eyes clear enough to know the differance between a harmless man grabbing you by the head and forcing your jaw open and rape. With clear-eyes you will never have the embarrassing moment of apoligizing for being a lying urchin trying to besmurch a good rich mans name."
Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaySedai
Member
Member # 6459

 - posted      Profile for CaySedai   Email CaySedai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how DeGraaf's wife feels about this. His legislator page lists his wife's name as Karen DeGraaf. It doesn't say anything about kids.

Further into Google, however, I found this page, which lists his four children, including a 17-year-old daughter. I assume she's been on the pill since age 10 or 11, since her dad would want her to be prepared, right?

Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there a link with that quote so I can share with others?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is not unusual for wealth to be seen as a sign of merit and poverty a sign of fault.
And vice versa.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the source of the "story" in the OP? I'm trying to think how it could be written in a more biased way but whoever did it already did a helluva job..

But it is unfortunate that there are elected officials who view rape as an inevitable likelihood and that the woman is therefore somehow responsible. Thankfully that view isn't even approaching mainstream within the pro-life community and is even being vehemently and vocally condemned by other members. Even if there is an alarmingly high probability of a woman being raped in her lifetime no woman should feel pregnancy from rape is her fault.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since the view that women are responsible for rape is far from uncommon among people in general, it's, well, unlikely it doesn't also exist among the 'pro-life' community which of course isn't one community.

Anyway, vocal condemnation isn't actually the way to deal with the underlying problem, that is, the probability of a woman being raped in her lifetime. What policies would be supported are actually relevant there.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I stopped reading after I saw the first "Anti-Choice" nonsense.

It's easy to tell that an article is going to be horribly biased when they use language that only people who already agree with them would use. [Smile]

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...normally I'd agree with you, Frisco, but isn't this a situation where the term actually *is* accurate, for at least some of the politicians involved? They don't want the choice to be available, even in cases of rape-well, they being a thankfully small number anyway.

How objectionable is it to call hat sort of thing anti-choice?

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because to label someone as "Anti-Choice" is an insult no matter how you put it. Just because they oppose one choice doesn't make them against choices. There are plenty of choices "Pro-Choice" people are against.

Referring to Pro-Life people as Anti-Choice would be like referring to Pro-Choice people as Pro-Abortion. Neither party likes it, so it's language you should only use if you want to capture the ear of people who already agree with you.

And people who speak like that are rarely accurate.

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you also stop reading articles which use the term 'pro-life' which necessarily entails very similar objections? It's a political term, it's true. It's not designed to be 100% honest anymore than pro-life is, which casts it's opposition as anti-life, as untrue as the notion that 'anti-choice' people are against *all* choice. It's rhetoric, designed to be persuasive.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pro-Life is what the majority of that side of the issue wishes to be called, so if I'm trying to spark a legitimate discussion, I will probably not start off insulting them in the first sentence.

If I'm trying to rile up my own side, it's not all that important to respect the other side, which is what I assume is going on here, which is why I decided to skip the article. [Smile] It wasn't written for me.

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will say that to call pro-lifers anti-choice is as silly as calling pro-choicers anti-life (I wonder if you think both are equally invalid, though).

And the story does do that, referring to a 'tidal wave of anti choice'. But insofar as a few particular politicians are concerned, those that want to remove the ability to abort even r pregnancies by way of rape, well, for them anyway anti-choice seems exactly as accurate as pro-life.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Abortion is difficult discussion. I was raised in a household where my mother told me that if she were raped, she would have the child, as it is alive and has no blame for the acts of its father.

I kept that belief for a long time until I met some young girls who had had abortions. One was torn up and saddened by the whole experience. One was smoking pot through an apple and laughing. The first told me how she wasn't ready for the responsibility and it was one of the hardest things she had ever had to do in her life. The other offered me a toke on her apple.

For people who believe that the issue at hand is the life of the potential child, how it got there is not the concern.

For people who believe that to carry a child is a huge burden and life changing event and should be a woman's choice, the possibility of that life is a secondary concern to their own life.

I can't tell you who is wrong.

Here is what I believe though, that all life has intrinsic value. Plant, animal, human, every life. But that that value isn't priceless, and sometimes the reason for the death of that life is more valuable then the life itself.

We should not kill needlessly, stupidly, for our own enjoyment or for simple convenience, be it a shrub, a deer, a fetus or a full grown human.

I'm sorry the first girl had an abortion, she would have been one hell of a mother.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
What's the source of the "story" in the OP? I'm trying to think how it could be written in a more biased way but whoever did it already did a helluva job..

It's from thinkprogress.org.
Posts: 2831 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
...normally I'd agree with you, Frisco, but isn't this a situation where the term actually *is* accurate, for at least some of the politicians involved? They don't want the choice to be available, even in cases of rape-well, they being a thankfully small number anyway.

How objectionable is it to call hat sort of thing anti-choice?

It's not exactly accurate. According to the OP the law would prevent insurance companies from covering non-life-threatening abortions in their general plans. Alternative plans or riders would continue to be available that would cover the procedure, and there's the option of paying out of pocket. This is more like a Sunstein-esque nudge than a real restriction of choice, such as would come about from a government ban on the procedure itself.

That said, I don't support the bill, in its specifics or its intent. In a world where everyone performed a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis when buying insurance, and could accurately assess the probability of unintended pregnancy, the expected costs (and benefits) of child-rearing, etc., etc. then maybe this sort of unbundling is a good idea (although even then I would say there are externalities that aren't taken into consideration in an individual CBA). But in our real world, it seems better to err on the side of caution.

I do think a good debate could (and should) be had about the social utility of default insurance plans. This is something I would have liked to have seen debated during the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Given that people will pretty much choose what they're told to choose, it seems like a good idea for the government and the insurance companies to invest in making the default options those that maximize (in some sense) the social welfare.

Posts: 2831 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know where else to put this cause there's been no overarching discussion about the storms, but, uh

Eric Cantor holds funds for Joplin recovery hostage . . . for more spending cuts.

quote:
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are increasingly divided over whether to pay for a massive emergency aid package for those hit by the storms pummeling the Midwest -- an intra-party scuffle that comes at a time of a near-obsessive focus on cutting spending on Capitol Hill.
GOP leaders are signaling they will push to come up with offsets to pay for such a package, which could cost billions of dollars and has been proposed in response to a week of tornadoes and floods that have decimated areas of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. The federal government typically foots the bill when it comes to responding to natural disasters, but Republicans in charge of the House say they plan to keep their message of fiscal discipline in line with their actions.
"There's not a question that there are going to be offsets if there is a request for a supplemental," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The Huffington Post.
Cantor said it is important that people "reach out in their hearts for the people who suffer," and emphasized that he believes the federal government should play a role in responding to natural disasters. But at the same time, he said, "We can find things we don't need to spend on to pay for it."
"I also think there's trillions of dollars of spending in Washington," Cantor added. "So it's about priorities."
Republicans have already identified potential offsets, Cantor said, referencing a draft Homeland Security bill that the Appropriations Committee approving on Tuesday that includes $1 billion for disaster relief. But their proposal -- drawing funds from unused money in an Energy Department advanced car technology program -- has only a slim chance of advancing beyond the House, given the program's priority ranking among Democrats and the White House. Critics also argue that $1 billion won't be nearly enough in aid to help disaster-stricken states.
And until it becomes clear if or when President Barack Obama will submit a supplemental request to Congress -- the first step in advancing emergency spending -- Republicans are left squabbling over which to prioritize as a party: ideology or necessity.

more to come on the (admittedly) very partisan idea of 'the republican war against women.'
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing I hate about these berks is that they think pre-marital sex is a sin, and a high percentage of them also seem to subscribe to the Catholic doctrine that sex with birth control is a sin too. You know the one that something like 98% of Catholics completely ignore? Ironically, cheap birth control and wide-spread information on how to use it is the possibly the best abortion prevention method out there. There is a reason PP is only 3% abortions.

Funny, because the only suggestion I can think of that doesn't involve life-crippling paranoia for women, because you can NEVER be too safe*, is cheap and ubiquitous birth control. I say this as a 24 year old women who is not on birth control.

Look, I'm just going to come out and say it. Dumb kids grow up to be dumb grown-ups, the giggling toking pot smokers, the ones who still can't wait 10 minutes for a second marshmallow. I have zero desire to raise the bar for them to access birth control or get abortions, because guess what, they aren't gonna make it, and the odds are the taxpayers will be paying that kid's bills. Getting handed another human being is going to make someone grow up real fast in some ways, but not all of them. Also, there are often really really really ugly family situations if someone who gets pregnant who doesn't want to be.


*Burkas and Elizabeth Smart come to mind here.

Posts: 1350 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Funny, because the only suggestion I can think of that doesn't involve life-crippling paranoia for women, because you can NEVER be too safe*, is cheap and ubiquitous birth control.
You know, the UK has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, unplanned pregnancy abortions are still common - and yet highly detailed sex-ed and free condoms are widely available and the religious right is much less vocal - though recently this may be changing.

AND - all you have to do is ask your doctor for the pill. You have an appointment (free) a check-up (free), any bloodwork needed (free), and then you take your prescription down to the pharmacy and they give you the pills (for free - for birth control even the prescription charge is waived).

The 'morning after pill' is available from the pharmacy, over the counter.

It's insane that this hasn't made more difference. I just can't understand it.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That really is depressing, tag on how blatantly pregnancies are aborted due to mental and physical handicaps in the UK and it is sad state of affairs.
Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't know where else to put this cause there's been no overarching discussion about the storms, but, uh

Eric Cantor holds funds for Joplin recovery hostage . . . for more spending cuts.

quote:
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are increasingly divided over whether to pay for a massive emergency aid package for those hit by the storms pummeling the Midwest -- an intra-party scuffle that comes at a time of a near-obsessive focus on cutting spending on Capitol Hill.
GOP leaders are signaling they will push to come up with offsets to pay for such a package, which could cost billions of dollars and has been proposed in response to a week of tornadoes and floods that have decimated areas of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. The federal government typically foots the bill when it comes to responding to natural disasters, but Republicans in charge of the House say they plan to keep their message of fiscal discipline in line with their actions.
"There's not a question that there are going to be offsets if there is a request for a supplemental," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The Huffington Post.
Cantor said it is important that people "reach out in their hearts for the people who suffer," and emphasized that he believes the federal government should play a role in responding to natural disasters. But at the same time, he said, "We can find things we don't need to spend on to pay for it."
"I also think there's trillions of dollars of spending in Washington," Cantor added. "So it's about priorities."
Republicans have already identified potential offsets, Cantor said, referencing a draft Homeland Security bill that the Appropriations Committee approving on Tuesday that includes $1 billion for disaster relief. But their proposal -- drawing funds from unused money in an Energy Department advanced car technology program -- has only a slim chance of advancing beyond the House, given the program's priority ranking among Democrats and the White House. Critics also argue that $1 billion won't be nearly enough in aid to help disaster-stricken states.
And until it becomes clear if or when President Barack Obama will submit a supplemental request to Congress -- the first step in advancing emergency spending -- Republicans are left squabbling over which to prioritize as a party: ideology or necessity.

more to come on the (admittedly) very partisan idea of 'the republican war against women.'
How many times do you think we will need to post this? If you are serious about the deficit, stop nickle and diming people in need and get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

Or this one: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=692

About 7% of our budget deficit is due to domestic discretionary programs and 10% to entitlements. Almost half is due to recent tax cuts.

Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Entirely hypothetical ofcourse, but I wonder how Brownback might react if he were raped and told he should have been prepared for such a thing and any repricussions are his to deal with.
Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:
Funny, because the only suggestion I can think of that doesn't involve life-crippling paranoia for women, because you can NEVER be too safe*, is cheap and ubiquitous birth control.
You know, the UK has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, unplanned pregnancy abortions are still common - and yet highly detailed sex-ed and free condoms are widely available and the religious right is much less vocal - though recently this may be changing.

AND - all you have to do is ask your doctor for the pill. You have an appointment (free) a check-up (free), any bloodwork needed (free), and then you take your prescription down to the pharmacy and they give you the pills (for free - for birth control even the prescription charge is waived).

The 'morning after pill' is available from the pharmacy, over the counter.

It's insane that this hasn't made more difference. I just can't understand it.

Mmm, but how does the UK teen pregnancy/abortion rate compare to other countries in the EU? From my limited understanding of European health-care, I imagine the other EU countries offer similar programs and the ubiquity of BC in the UK is far from unique. Could there be some sort of cultural explanation that differentiates the UK? I have heard angry internet commenters (from the Daily Mail, iirc) accuse young women of getting pregnant for the government benefits, because they are perhaps too good.

Then, how do the UK rates compare to the US rate? I haven't seen any figures myself, but I recall attending a talk by Bill Gates, and it was mentioned that maternal mortality and birth rates in the US are an anomaly among the other statistics, because they fall between the third world and what you see with Europe, because of the problems with health care here, and getting birth control.

I don't think you can say the education and heavily subsidized BC is useless using the UK example, unless you can show that the UK system is theoretically "better" than the rest of the the EU, and the their numbers are in fact worse than the United States'.

Teen pregnancy and abortion epidemic in the UK or not, I can say one thing for sure. If a woman does decide that she is not up to bearing her rapist's child, she does not require proof of crime or permission or cost to interfere we getting it done.

[ May 31, 2011, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]

Posts: 1350 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stupid question.

Do any cars not come with a spare tires?

Posts: 1350 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Stupid question.

Do any cars not come with a spare tires?

Yes, if you steal one off a fellow who has recently had to replace a flat. Smart cars don't have room for a spare tire right? Just off the top of my head.
Posts: 14191 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Stupid question.

Do any cars not come with a spare tires?

Mine does not.
Posts: 3559 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Spare Tire on my car is a temp. Its a smaller sized mini-tire that can only be used for about 40 miles before it goes out.

Its not designed to last my lifetime, or even the lifetime of the car. Its just there until I can get the tire fixed.

So what would that analogy equate to? Lets reopen up all the orphanages, state run, so that the raped women can deliver their children to the state to raise as needed.

Posts: 1856 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2