This is a pretty harsh indictment, folks. Rachel Maddow last night on the relationships between Colorado’s failed “Personhood” abortion ban initiatives and local politicians who supported them in the past such as Mike Coffman and Joe Coors, and implications for the avowedly pro-”personhood” Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan GOP ticket–both within and outside our swing state:
Say what you will about Maddow, after watching it you’ll either want every woman in your life to see this report, or you won’t want any woman voter to see it (dependent on your affiliation).
Full story: NBC’s Rachel Maddow on “Personhood,” Coffman, Coors, Romney-Ryan
is that she contributes to the misunderstanding that the most popular methods of birth control act mainly on fertilized eggs. Birth control pills prevent ovulation which means no egg is released to be fertilized in the first place. While it has been alleged that this often fails and then the fertilized egg is prevented from implanting the prevailing opinion now is that there is no substantial evidence to back this up.
While I don’t believe in personhood for fertilized eggs either, I wish Maddow hadn’t given the impression that the most popular forms of birth control have much, if anything, to do with fertilized eggs.
As to the opinions expressed and stands taken on the matter by both Romney and Ryan, she is, as usual, completely accurate and presents clear evidence for back up. Women should take note. Everyone should take note of the fact that Romney is always ready to claim he didn’t say what he said, doesn’t support what he said he supports on this or any other issue including the draconian Ryan budget.
The man simply has no core integrity. He said whatever it took to become governor of blue Mass. and will say whatever he thinks it will take to become President. It’s impossible to discern what, if any, principles he holds. If he has any they seem to be confined to greed and self aggrandizement, if you can call those “principles”.
I’ll get an update.
http://bigmedia.org/2012/08/10…
This is mainly focused on morning after pills but the same principle applies for common birth control pills as well since morning after is pretty much a higher dose of hormones. If I got that wrong or incomplete, DaftPunk can explain it more accurately, I’m sure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06…
Is apparently that it can slow sperm travel. That would be like a woman impeding a man from doing his duty, so it has to be immoral, right?
speaking at length on birth control….methods of which that one assumes she has no personal knowledge.
-the cchurch continues to claim that the bc pill prevents
implementation.
-the morning after pill is the pill that the cchurch calls the abortion pill…neatly confusing the morning after pill with the pill used to induce abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
-no bill, state or federal, will ban abortion until or unless Roe v. Wade, the constitutional standard, is overturned.
She owns a platform to opine, unfortunately her focus has not been on jobs and the economy.
It’s very tough to defend the record of the Obama administration, heck Obama2012 can’t even run on the record as he and PrioritiesUSA are still in ‘kill Romney’ mode.
Does it really matter if she is a lesbian?
Lesbians can be moms, too.
One does not need “personal knowledge” of birth control to have an informed opinion. Or should men all keep out of it, too?
as follows Ari’s comments, until men — including the pope and bishops — start a personal knowledge relationship by taking control, then they should refrain making any untoward comments regarding the matter.
You seem to be channeling some inner Libertad today, dwyer.
We’re just posting in it.
* Obama and Romney aren’t farmers so dating to 2008 they shouldn’t opine on farm policy.
* Obama hasn’t run a business so he shouldn’t have a business policy.
* Romney hasn’t been to Africa so he shouldn’t have an Africa policy.
Somehow I’ve never heard you say any of the above. Maybe this “shut up if you don’t have personal knowledge” rule of yours is a special one for lesbians?
Do you
live in Denvertake birth control?I had to check to make sure it wasn’t dywer.
Personhood is about a whole constellation of women’s choice issues. Would any woman, including lesbian women, be free to abort a pregnancy that was the result of rape? A planned pregnancy that becomes a very high health risk? If any woman, including a lesbian woman, has difficulty getting pregnant what would be her range of options? How is all this not as much of a concern for lesbians?
Lots of women take hormonal birth control as a treatment for a range of conditions. No reason why this would be less true for lesbians.
That’s what we have men for.
About as toward as you get, birth-control-wise.
Assume the worst. Assume the best.
He’s nailed whatever position you hold most dear on both sides. For , Against. evolving, etc.
He’s a lying weasel.
Ryan ….is less a weasel, but has never had to campaign on the national stage.
Is he still for personhood?
Is he still for deafulting the national debt in order to not raise the debt ceiling?
Does he really want to end Medicare for everyone under 55?
Does he really want enrollment fees on Tricare so high that drives everyone out of Tricare?
He’s not presidential – and I do not want him anywhere near the football.
It’s a weird campaign –
don’t want/need the black vote, don’t need the seniors,don’t need no women.
HTF does R/R (Tea) win the electoral math without FL, MI, or PA?
Yes… and compare that to Obama’s stellar truth telling legacy. Now that is a guy I can get behind. Obama is so honest and presidential.
Try harder.
has a rep for the opposite of what you say, I guess. Also, promises not kept because of obstruction aren’t the same as lies. We don’t have an elected dictator system.
Obama thinks he is the dictator. He bypasses congress all the time with his executive orders. As long as he knows better – it is ok.
As for his lies – Bush made him do it.
Obama hasn’t used executive order any more than GW. The latter, 288 in eight years, Obama 129 in 3.8-ish. So, give or take, just the same.
It’s funny how you hypocrites, oh, sorry, Republicans, so do love what your presidents do, but when a Dem does the same thing, he’s a “dictator.” The famous words, “Give me a fucking break,” spring to mind.
And yes, it hugely IS GW’s fault. Granted, many Dems went right along with the Bush tax cuts in fear of election time reprisal. And yes, the Ameican voter still understands at either a gut or intellectual (look that one up) level, that Obama inherited the manure in the Bush barn. I don’t have a link, but just read the other day some polling that shows just that, many understand this mess isn’t Obama’s fault.
When will the Pubs bring the jobs bill to the floor?
Dick Cheney for the level of power enjoyed by this president. Why don’t you use the google and find out what “unitary executive” means?
The principle, as my dad always said, is to avoid letting your .38 caliber mouth overload your .22 caliber brain… (figuring a rightie can better understand a gun analogy.)
Do either Romney or Ryan?
Cause I could find video from both of them that goes either way.
President Obama opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Did either Romney or Ryan?
Cause I could find video from both of them that goes either way.
I could go on- but you get the point.
Campaigns are hard. As a citizen , it’s my job to make it harder when you are a lying weasel.
I can poke you in the eye without going through someone else.
We, with our oh so modern sophistication, laugh at the medievals debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“Life starts at X” is the 21st century equivalent. Our descendants will laugh at us as do our predecessors.
Like the angels question, there is no answer to when life starts. I won’t lay out the arguments we are all familiar with.
I do find it amusing that Christians have no reference to abortion in the bible, have taken the ancient Jewish understanding – at first breath – and made up something out of whole cloth. If, indeed, Jesus came to not change one jot or tiddle, something sure got changed. But hey that’s religion, truckloads of cognitive dissonance.
This just in: The universe doesn’t give a flying leap about your life or anyone else’s. Nature, our DNA, does care that your DNA gets passed on. This is the only possible standard that doesn’t require someone MSU as fact.
See my sig line.
I don’t question any of the responses I have received.
Lesbians do not routinely require birth control to prevent pregnancy because they are not routinely engaged in sexual relations that could result in pregnancy.
The issue of rape, medical treatment, and planned pregnancies are all legitimate.
I found that Maddow’s treatment was superficial and I attributed it to the fact that she does not deal with birth control personally. I cited my reasons.
I think this is a healthy discussion. I expressed an opinion.
Nobody agrees with me. OK. HOWEVER, the fact that no state or federal law, in and off itself, will outlaw abortion is a fact and not a matter of opinion.
why are you even posting about birth control?
You’ve never been more wrong than this, and that’s saying a lot. Maddow’s sexual orientation is irrelevant.
I think and therefore I have an opinion which I posted here.
What you are saying is that my opinion is wrong. Okay, that is your opinion. I do no believe that Maddow’s sexual orientation is irrelevant, that is my opinion.
You show me yours and I will show you mine…..
Several of us have given reasons for why it is, but you’ve only stated that not having (consensual) sex with a man in support of yours. And that one point has been shown to be invalid. If you disagree and say that it’s valid, please show us where we’re incorrect.
I think that women who use birth control or more importantly perhaps, depend on it, have a perspective based on that experience that Maddow does not.
I reacted that way, I have heard others also react the same way. I believe that it could have a negative impact on independent voters and it certainly is great fodder for talk radio…
It hasn’t been shown to be invalid. You all have totally different opinions. I respect that. I just don’t agree with you all for the reasons I cited above.
and overestimate its importance – at least in the short term. It’s one of your fixations, so I don’t expect you to change your view…
Anyway, I don’t feel like you really clarified. I already KNOW how you feel, but I asked WHY and for WHAT REASON and didn’t get that here. Of course someone using something has a different perspective than one who is not, but WHY does that matter? I want to know what the difference in perspective is, and find out if that difference is so great that a sympathetic individual couldn’t relate to.
how the hell did Obama decisively win the 2008 election? And before that how come all the conservative talk radio show hosts couldn’t stop McCain from being nominated? Since then, how come they couldn’t stop Romney from being nominated? Obsession is right. They can’t even get personhood amendments passed in Mississippi.
We know Dwyer is fixated on the idea that talk radio is all powerful and anyone who doesn’t believe Dems can possibly ever overcome it, even when they do, is a Pollyanna. But dwyer being equally fixated on the nonsensical idea that it’s “untoward” for any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, to be concerned about women’s health and choice issues? And that the kind of indies open to voting D probably share that view? That came as a surprise to me.
And “that’s how I feel” is no explanation at all. Why? Never mind. There is no “why” that would make sense, other than homophobia.
Opinions can be wrong. If your opinion is, “This person is wrong because she’s black/Jewish/old/gay,” then your opinion is wrong, and every grownup can and should call you on it.
Hate radio is clearly rubbing off on you and not in a good way. Try listening to NPR in the morning for a day or two and see if you still think lesbians only get to speak when you will it.
has no credibility, no standing as an unbigotted opinion unless you are also willing to opine that all other persons — all — who are not actively fucking, heterosexually fucking women would be “untoward” (cute) in commenting on birth control.
If, in YOUR OPINION, no man (heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual), no celibate woman, no Mesa County Republican sheepfucker, is privileged to comment on birth control, then YOUR OPINION can be taken seriously. If not, you’re either a bigot or stupid.
I wish that affirmation was for my comment….somehow I think that your comment is out of sync….and you are not agreeing with me.
because MADCO isn’t a bigoted asshole.
Your homophobia is not appreciated here. It COULD be that everyone else on Pols is wrong to not give a shit about Maddow’s sexual orientation, and you’re just being persecuted SO VERY UNFAIRLY, or…maybe…you might be wrong yourself. Think hard before you reply.
How come the Cubs just cannot win the pennant?
I think it’s gotta be Wrigley Field it self. It’s not a curse (f*ck that goat), it’s not day games, it’s not bad pitching.
Well- it is bad pitching.
But it’s Wrigley Field itself. They need to tear that place down and start over.
Yeah- that’s anice way of saying it.
Here- go to my comment. My affirmation “+270″
Click on “parent” and it will leap you to the comment I was replying to.
Something is out of sync. Lots of things are.
And in the spirit of symmetry is beauty, assymetry and …out of synch-ness are ugly. Think and be happy.
1) If Romney is elected, it’s essentially certain that Roe v Wade is dead; it’s extremely likely that at least one of Ginsburg (now age 79), Breyer (age 74), and Kennedy (age 76) will retire by 2016, giving Romney the ability to add a likely 5th Justice who opposes abortion rights.
2) State laws in conservative states, and federal laws if Romney is elected and the Repubs take over the Senate (which is likely if R turnout is good enough to elect Romney), are doing an excellent job of making abortion far less available and far more burdensome. You don’t have to flat-out ban abortion to deny an awful lot of women any realistic opportunity to choose.
I have said over and over again that the Senate is the prize precisely because it will control the composition of the Supreme Court. Abortion would be banned if
1) The Supreme Court would overturn Roe.
2) An Human Life Amendment to the Constitution were to pass.
Those are facts. Simple laws can not trump the Constitution. Period.
The Senate can only ratify–or fail to ratify–a nomination brought to it…by the President. The Senate is not the only prize.
True. But the Supreme Court has shown that it will trump the Constitution.
1) You are right that the Senate can only approve (not ratify….treaties are ratified, appointments are approved or consented to). The Senate can block any presidential nomination and force the President to either allow a vacancy to persist on the court or to appoint someone that the Senate would approve. In my opinion, that gives the Senate the power to control the composition of the Supreme Court.
2)
Nope. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Marberry v. Madison
You are correct about “approve” rather than “ratify.” But it seems the Senate is the prize only with a Democratic president–because a Republican Senate (hell, a R number of 41 or greater) will obstruct. With a Republican president, recent history is that a Dem Senate gives the president whatever he wants.
On the second point, I think we are saying–or at least intending–something similar. When you say, “The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is,” that is what I meant when I said “the Supreme Court has shown that it will trump the Constitution.” A “simple law” can trump the current interpretation of the Constitution if the Supreme Court says it does.
It’s too bad that political correctness is stopping Colorado Pols readers from acknowledging the obvious.
to hate lesbians. It’s like the Bat-signal for bigots.
It’s reality. Unless Jurassic Park is about to come true?
Political correctness is playing no role in this discussion at all.
Thank you for the new signature.
blogging at length on matters that require some minimal brains…matters of which that one assumes he has no personal grasp.
But can I ask, A-bot, since you agree that Rachel Maddow is somehow ill-equipped to have an opinion on birth control; how you came to be such an expert on this subject yourself, and pretty much every other topic under the sun, upon which you have no problem opining regardless of how utterly false and stupid that opinion is?
Thanks for the clarification.
because he’s a not-lesbian. Evidently neither is dwyer. The criterion for expertise on birth control is obviously being a not-lesbian. The only criterion.
So unless you are a sexually active women who might use birth control, you ca’t say anything intelligent about the issue?
Well that would explain Buck, Gardner, Mitchell, Romney, Ryan and a bunch of others.
But I disagree.
might be a clue. it’s not that you weren’t wholly pleased with Rachel’s presentation. Neither was I. It’s the incredible and obviously bigoted statement (as evidenced by Arap’s agreement with it) that is the sticking point.
Don’t expect your company on that thought to extend beyond Arap and his fellow travelers.
I should take a poll before I express an opinion? I should seek prior approval? Only “group think” is allowed on this blog? One must follow the democratic/progressive line? One is not allowed an independent thought???….but I digress.
Doctors with political agendas are not.
and get out.
seems a little bit untoward doesn’t it . . . expressing an opinion? I don’t know for sure, that’s just my opinion. I mean, I’m not a lesbian (well I may be – there’s a great “Dusty and Lefty” joke about loving women, always thinking about women . . . sorry, I digress) so can I have an opinion about your opinion of a lesbian having an opinion without being untoward? What’s your independent opinion?
Seriously now, you made an innacurate statement about the suitability of any person to hold a reasonable thought because they belong or don’t belong to some group. Lesbians can’t understand birth control :: Muslims can’t understand Christians can’t understand Jews :: Black people can’t understand Whites can’t understand Hispanics . . .
. . . I’ll never understand old people.
It’s that there is a reason you’re getting a lot of flack about this one. You’re entitled to say anything you want. So is Arap. So is ‘tad. So is Nock. Express all you want but others also get to express their opinion of your opinion. It’s a blog.
You probably should take it as a compliment that so many of us were surprised by such a bigoted sounding opinion coming from you. I expect gloom and doom and whining from you but I sure didn’t expect anything like this.
Tomorrow, I will opine on Wisconsin and Ryan. Rev up your anger.
No one is saying that you are not “allowed” an opinion.
I personally do not like doctors posting on a political blog, and suggesting that their opinion is worth more than others because they are medically trained – even tho, you are giving a “professional opinion”
as witnessed by your latest comment – see above.
We haven’t heard “dodo head” or “penis breath” yet….but I am sure that is in the pipeline…..
Perhaps we are all playing “mean girls in middle school” to celebrate the start of school.
And I did that when?
If you don’t like what I write, challenge me for evidence. When you do be prepared for facts in response. I can back up what I write, or I wouldn’t write it.
Again, that makes one of us.
You certainly seem to be saying that by criticizing your opinion people aren’t allowing you one or are demanding pre-approval or that you should take polls before you express yourself. You are really full of it today, dwyer.
Maybe you know but just hate to admit, especially to Daft, that saying it’s “untoward” for a lesbian to talk about birth control was really off the wall as in what the heck were you thinking? Maybe that’s what this is really about.
and he’s also allowed to correct misstatements of fact based on his expertise. What could possibly be wrong with that?
If someone makes a mathematical error, I correct it because I’m pretty good at math. Should I not talk about math because it might be a conflict of interest?
So let me get this straight:
1) Rachel Maddow can’t talk about birth control because she does not regularly have heterosexual sex and is therefore not qualified.
2) DaftPunk can’t talk about medical issues because he’s a doctor and is therefore qualified.
Tell me dwyer, can anyone talk about anything? Besides dwyer, obviously.
that we get to benefit from the opinions of participants with various areas of expertise and experience. Lawyers, doctors, vets, teachers, among others. Why shouldn’t we value what they bring to the table when they express opinions in their areas of special knowledge? The opinions of people who know what they’re talking about and can provide back up on a given subject are more valuable than the opinions of someone pulling it out of thin air.
Just my opinion.