The GOP of Iowa Makes War on Women.

War schmore, there is none. You can get your abortion on your own dime, not tax payers. Same for contraceptives. It kills me how the left spins; if it's not free you are declaring war. Go figure.

May I remind you that you're talking about a legal medical procedure to keep a woman from physical harm or to save a woman's life? I see no spin.

You can still get your medical procedure on your own dime, not tax payers.

Poor women don't have their own dime. That's what this is all about.

As for me, I'm no longer in the reproductive sweepstakes, so don't bother with the personal comments.

How do you know they don't?

I'm a conservative, I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. That's the sole province of liberals.

Hardly. I've been attacked as a Muslim (I'm not), a Communist (I'm not) and a Nazi (I'm not).

How can I 'know?' I can't; I'm not on the ground with the women in need. But as with applications for a loan or college, there is a screening mechanism for obtaining public funds for health care. You know this.

Who has attacked you?

If the gov't dangles a carrot, there will be legions of people claiming the can't live without it and not to have it will deprive them of basic human rights. That Sandra Flucke episode was just a charade. How about telling these people how they got pregnant in the first place.

Conservatives on this site. My point was that neither conservatives nor liberals has the exclusive rights to kindness nor stupid attacks.

Carrot? I find that laughable. And you've entirely missed the point Sandra Fluke was making.

And what point was she making other than the Gov't should provide something for free?

Don't play the fool. It wasn't the government; it was insurance. You conservatives really need to educate yourselves about the issues and stop listening to the spin docs.

I understand what your're saying, but the gov't is mandating that contraceptives be provided for free, right? If the insurance company can't charge you directly, it will pass on the costs to all insureds. Nothing should be for free, everybody should have some skin in the game.

Nothing is for free with insurance. There's almost always a co-pay, and the insured person almost always pays into the insurance fund. The only time that's not so is if you have the Cadillac of insurance policies and who can afford that? It's hugely expensive.

Why should I have to pay for all those people who smoke and then require expensive treatments? In comparison, paying for BC (which DOES have medical applications - the subject of Ms. Flukes testimony) is peanuts.

Yes, we all pay. I'm ok with that, even the for those whose problems are brought about by over-eating, drinking too much or smoking.

There is no co-pay or deductible with this, also no co-pay or deductible can be charged with "wellness" or physicals. It has to be "free".

Those who live unhealthily pay a premium for their habits, at least that's the way it is now. Under Obamacare, that'll most likely disappear. The gov't always distorts the market and runs things inefficiently.

I've never yet seen a policy that nicked you for excessive drinking or for being obese.

We PAY for our insurance. When I was in school, insurance came with my entry into the university but believe me, that money was folded into my tuition. It's not 'free.'

It saves the insurance companies boodles of bucks to have people go to wellness physicals. They make it easy by paying for it all the way. An ounce of prevention etc etc etc.

Don't kid yourself - the plan we have is the insurance lobby's wet dream. It's not what we liberals wanted at all. We wanted to cut out the middle man and create a medicare-like program. Obama-care? That's a laugh. It's a money funnel to the insurance companies. But it's still better than what we had.

You pay a premium for smoking and they probably could add a risk factor for obesity and drinking as well.

I believe everything should have a co-pay otherwise it will get abused. I didn't know the gov't could order you to provide a service for free?

It's never free. We pay, believe me.

Oh, I know we pay, but I think it should be like a users fee where only those that use the service pay for it, like you do on a toll road. When people have to pay something they're less likely to abuse it.

I doubt that would fly. Imagine if you're diagnosed with some horror of a disease and you have to pay a toll for every scoping, MRI, blood draw, chemo treatment etc. No, the system - wretched as it is - is basically fair in NOT instituting a per use/pay system.

On some things there could be, like an elective private behavior: your sex life.

And Viagra? That was why there was an uproar originally. As soon as that hit the marketplace, it was covered and BC? Nope. Parity is where it's at for me.

It shouldn't be covered, either.

Impotence is a medical condition. I think it should be covered. When I was still in the reproductive sweepstakes, I had to go to my doc to get a prescription for whatever kind of BC I was using. It's not a case of going to the corner store and picking out something (except condoms). If insurance pays for my visit - less copay - why shouldn't it pay for my prescription?

It's been nice talking to you but I'm finished with the subject :)

Have a nice weekend.

You too.

Iowa might want consider that abortions are legal in this country. Federal law trumps state law, so Iowa is just tilting at windmills.

With all the problems with the economy and trying to end these useless wars, the republicans once again can only focus on sex issues...

Republicans must be the most sexually frustrated people on the face of the earth. They really need to get laid.

It's happening in many states across the country. In AZ I read a law passed where a doctor or anyone else doesn't have to tell you if there is something seriously wrong in your pregnancy - if they think you might have an abortion. Just wrong. This is no better, as two lives can be lost.

It's a natural consequence of a small to mediocre intelligence - it can only think in black and white so all the nuances disappear. I'm afraid these whacko, social conservatives are definitely of that order of intelligence.

I agree, there is a lot of ignorance out there. I could never embrace the idea of no government help for poor women and deny them any choice in it. It's cruel.

Nuff said!

I'm all fired up and ready to go on that, Ed!

Happens!, but your right.

Count me in also!

Yay!

My friends know I'm pro-life. This kind of legislation leaves me bewildered. How can that politician say this is "a fight to protect life anytime we can"? Two human beings will be dead! That doesn't protect life.

Thanks for your sensitivity to the rights and well-being of others. No, it doesn't protect life, this legislation - apparently it's functioning as a roll call for conservatives to stand up and be counted.

I'm sure without knowing as fact, that he supported sending our men and women to Iraq. The Invasion for the Haliburton bail-out.

I've told this story before on SH, but the relevancy does not go away.

My first wife had serious problems, kidney, heart to mention a couple. She became pregnant unintentionally, those things happen...and it seems part of this "war on women" is trying to see that it happens more often! Anyway, the laws of my state (at the time), gave ONE Catholic doctor the power to decide whether a woman could have an abortion. My wife's doctor, the doctor that delivered HER at birth, felt that she could not survive the pregnancy and requested the abortion. The "GOD Doctor" would not approve! As far as HE was concerned, she could die, and if the baby died too, so be it, that was up to God!

My wife's doctor gave her an illegal abortion to save her life! I have always been thankful to him. A year later she was gone...at least she had that year. I will always be pro choice whenever a necessity is involved!

What a heart wrenching situation. I can only imagine the pain you & your first wife went through.

I would have taken the "Stop sign" answer, but we, as a Democracy, need at least two Parties, too bad the Republicans left and stuck us with these wacko conservatives. These people only care about "fetuses". After they're born they can die, live in poverty, with an incurable, hideous disease passed on by a rapist, live with mental or physical problems brought on by poor or NO prenatal care that the mother COULD have received from Planned Parenthood....yeah, after they're born...who cares??
" 'Taint Christian to prevent a life of misery!"...it seems.

I totally agree with you - we DO need both a conservative and a progressive party, along with a goodly helping of moderates in both. But, as you say, our conservative party has been hijacked by the extremists. We see their footprint in legislation such as this.