This is a photo of Republican lawmakers discussing taking away maternity coverage

[homersapien 11,366]

You may notice a certain group of people missing.

This isn’t a coincidence. As my colleague Sarah Kliff has explained, research shows that when women are put in positions of political power, they’re more likely than men to speak to women’s issues. So a bunch of men might have a much tougher time discussing why these benefits shouldn’t be required under health insurance regulations.

 

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/23/15041620/ahca-men-maternity-coverage

[AUDub 11,147]

Plenty of diversity! Why, I see a red tie, a yellow tie, a lavender tie, a beard, one clearly very relaxed gentleman (obvious since he's taken his jacket off) by the door, and even a few bald guys! Why would you need any more diversity than that?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

What I fail to understand is why these men view uteruses as more dangerous than assault rifles.

[quietfan 233]

...and some people question why millions of women feel compelled to march in the streets in defense of their rights, freedoms, and equality.  

[AURaptor 1,122]

We're suppose to take at face value that " taking away maternity coverage " was the sole purpose of this meeting, and there wasn't a laundry list of other items  being discussed ? 

What about taking away maternity coverage for men ? Those who'll never HAVE a need for maternity coverage, and ought not have to pay for it either ? 

[homersapien 11,366]

8 hours ago, AURaptor said:

We're suppose to take at face value that " taking away maternity coverage " was the sole purpose of this meeting, and there wasn't a laundry list of other items  being discussed ? 

What about taking away maternity coverage for men ? Those who'll never HAVE a need for maternity coverage, and ought not have to pay for it either ? 

Weasel.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 hours ago, AURaptor said:

What about taking away maternity coverage for men ? Those who'll never HAVE a need for maternity coverage, and ought not have to pay for it either ? 

And women pay for prostate and testicular cancer coverage.  It's how insurance works.  

And I honestly cannot think of anything less pro-life than dropping maternity coverage for women.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

And women pay for prostate and testicular cancer coverage.  It's how insurance works.  

And I honestly cannot think of anything less pro-life than dropping maternity coverage for women.  

Pro life is nothing more than a political slogan to get Christian votes. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Pro life is nothing more than a political slogan to get Christian votes. 

It's not to a whole lot of people.  People I know.  People who devote their time and substantial amounts of money to helping pregnant women and single mothers.  People who have opened their homes to adoption, sometimes multiple times over, or have become foster parents. Most pro-life people are not Ayn Rand disciples even if they aren't fiscal liberals.  But it may be nothing more than a slogan to the movers and shakers in the Republican party leadership.

[AURaptor 1,122]

6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Pro life is nothing more than a political slogan to get Christian votes. 

omg ! That's terrible ! 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not to a whole lot of people.  People I know.  People who devote their time and substantial amounts of money to helping pregnant women and single mothers.  People who have opened their homes to adoption, sometimes multiple times over, or have become foster parents. Most pro-life people are not Ayn Rand disciples even if they aren't fiscal liberals.  But it may be nothing more than a slogan to the movers and shakers in the Republican party leadership.

Consider yourself blessed to know those people. Most people I know who claim to be pro life are only concerned with life from conception to birth. 

[Mims44 1,867]

[icanthearyou 4,462]

19 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And women pay for prostate and testicular cancer coverage.  It's how insurance works.  

And I honestly cannot think of anything less pro-life than dropping maternity coverage for women.  

Maybe, just maybe, Republican and "pro-life" aren't nearly as synonymous as some believe?  Perhaps the political implications are more about guile than convictions.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

22 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Maybe, just maybe, Republican and "pro-life" aren't nearly as synonymous as some believe?  Perhaps the political implications are more about guile than convictions.

I haven't been under this illusion for a while now.  But the moniker keeps getting bandied about, so I point out the hypocrisy of it when taking anti-family actions guaranteed to cause more abortions.

[homersapien 11,366]

41 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I haven't been under this illusion for a while now.  But the moniker keeps getting bandied about, so I point out the hypocrisy of it when taking anti-family actions guaranteed to cause more abortions.

I think that's ICHY's point.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I haven't been under this illusion for a while now.  But the moniker keeps getting bandied about, so I point out the hypocrisy of it when taking anti-family actions guaranteed to cause more abortions.

Not to mention, more human suffering in general.  The Christian right is either, not Christian or, being duped in the name of "pro-life".  

[AURaptor 1,122]

So the govt forcing private insurance companies to cover what has never been mandated to be  covered before is some how now being cast as anti-family  ? 

Why doesn't the govt FORCE our auto insurance companies to give us free Uber rides too ? Free tires and oil changes ? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

14 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Not to mention, more human suffering in general.  The Christian right is either, not Christian or, being duped in the name of "pro-life".  

Just based on Christian people I know who said they couldn't vote for HRC because of her abortion stance, they only see abortion and homosexual marriage as the only biblical political issues. They fail, either by their own disinterest in politics or because they believe messages promoted from behind a pulpit, to see that the Pro Life party (GOP) has done nothing to overturn Roe V. Wade. They fail to see how Democratic policies actually reduce the numbers of abortions performed. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

14 hours ago, AURaptor said:

So the govt forcing private insurance companies to cover what has never been mandated to be  covered before is some how now being cast as anti-family  ? 

Why doesn't the govt FORCE our auto insurance companies to give us free Uber rides too ? Free tires and oil changes ? 

Yes.  If you want to promote families, if you want to discourage abortions, if you want healthy mothers and children, then you want maternity and prenatal care as a standard part of a health care plan.  If you say you want to have fewer (or no) abortions but you oppose maternity care, then you are either a hypocrite or have trouble connecting the dots.

Free Uber rides and maternity care are not on the same level.  One is about human life, the other about convenience.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

42 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Just based on Christian people I know who said they couldn't vote for HRC because of her abortion stance, they only see abortion and homosexual marriage as the only biblical political issues. They fail, either by their own disinterest in politics or because they believe messages promoted from behind a pulpit, to see that the Pro Life party (GOP) has done nothing to overturn Roe V. Wade. They fail to see how Democratic policies actually reduce the numbers of abortions performed. 

I can only speak for me and others I know here, but it's not that abortion and gay marriage are the only political issues.  It's that abortion in particular is a major issue of human rights and core morality for many people.  So, to vote for someone who is fervently pro-choice, it's going to take them being better in a MAJOR and OBVIOUS way on several other things to offset that.  In Hillary's case, instead of seeing an opportunity to peel off some disaffected Republicans who were disgusted by Trump's behavior and demeanor, she lurched left.  Gone was "safe, legal and rare" and replaced by a promise to kill the Hyde Amendment.  She practically sent up a batsignal that said "Christian votes not needed."

Some Democratic policies would have the effect of reducing abortions.  And that's why I'm a bit more flexible on economic issues.  So long as a policy isn't immoral in another way or unethical, if it works I'm willing to at least try it.  But the Democrats have done a pretty damn good job of telling anyone that isn't fully on board with their 'progressive' social agenda that they don't really give a rat's ass if they vote for them or not.  Maybe it's not just Christian conservatives that need to bend a little.

[AURaptor 1,122]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes.  If you want to promote families, if you want to discourage abortions, if you want healthy mothers and children, then you want maternity and prenatal care as a standard part of a health care plan.  If you say you want to have fewer (or no) abortions but you oppose maternity care, then you are either a hypocrite or have trouble connecting the dots.

Free Uber rides and maternity care are not on the same level.  One is about human life, the other about convenience.

 Somehow this country existed for 200+ years without government mandated care for newborns 

 Somehow the human race existed without some external force actively telling people what to do and how to do it. But now, thank God, we have government? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I can only speak for me and others I know here, but it's not that abortion and gay marriage are the only political issues.  It's that abortion in particular is a major issue of human rights and core morality for many people.  So, to vote for someone who is fervently pro-choice, it's going to take them being better in a MAJOR and OBVIOUS way on several other things to offset that.  In Hillary's case, instead of seeing an opportunity to peel off some disaffected Republicans who were disgusted by Trump's behavior and demeanor, she lurched left.  Gone was "safe, legal and rare" and replaced by a promise to kill the Hyde Amendment.  She practically sent up a batsignal that said "Christian votes not needed."

Some Democratic policies would have the effect of reducing abortions.  And that's why I'm a bit more flexible on economic issues.  So long as a policy isn't immoral in another way or unethical, if it works I'm willing to at least try it.  But the Democrats have done a pretty damn good job of telling anyone that isn't fully on board with their 'progressive' social agenda that they don't really give a rat's ass if they vote for them or not.  Maybe it's not just Christian conservatives that need to bend a little.

I'm aware that others see more biblical political issues besides abortion and homosexuality. I was only speaking of people I know personally. Those in my community have a way of thinking that is contained within the parameters of their religious doctrine. I agree with you that the Clinton campaign didn't try to woo Christian voters at all. But I'm still stunned that many Christian leaders like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson endorsed Trump as the more Christian choice. 

I do hope that this has been a lesson to democrats as to what is working within the party and what is not. The healthcare bill fiasco just proved that the Dems are the only part that knows how to work.

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

 Somehow this country existed for 200+ years without government mandated care for newborns 

 Somehow the human race existed without some external force actively telling people what to do and how to do it. But now, thank God, we have government? 

Yep.  It's called "progress", thank God.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

 Somehow this country existed for 200+ years without government mandated care for newborns 

 Somehow the human race existed without some external force actively telling people what to do and how to do it. But now, thank God, we have government? 

And in times past we had far higher infant mortality rates, far higher rates of women dying in childbirth, far higher rates of poverty.  And if woman did get pregnant out of wedlock, we was virtually assured to be consigned to a life of poverty.  All of these results drive a woman to try and end a pregnancy out of sheer desperation.

So, if you think families should be encouraged and supported, if you desire better health outcomes for baby and mother, and if you want to do something other than merely outlaw it to reduce abortions, then maternity and prenatal care is a good thing. 

We've existed for a long time without lots of things, but that doesn't mean that if something is within our ability to make provide or happen we shouldn't do it.  Not everything that happened for thousands of years is preferable to what can happen now.

[AURaptor 1,122]

 I do not think that is the proper function of government, federal government, to engage in this issue at all. 

 

 By some miracle, by someway, we were able as a country to exist and to have children before 2009. Stop acting like this is some throwback the 1800s.