Nothing surprises me about this campaign.

#1
Gramps

Gramps

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,143
Likes
6,310
#1
Actress Elizabeth Banks: Romney Won't Help Women With 'a Heavy Flow' | Video Cafe

In what may be a first for U.S. presidential campaign advertisements, actress Elizabeth Banks is warning that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would strip Planned Parenthood of funding and prevent some women from receiving treatment for conditions like migraines and "a heavy flow."

Unbelievable. If woman has a "heavy flow" vote Obama .
 
#3
#3
Before I ever dated a woman seriously, I thought that birth control was just a woman's device for insuring against pregnancy and an invitation for her to have lots of free sex. Since I've become a relationship man, however, I've learned that our typical notion of birth control is not all it's cracked up to be. My girlfriend, who I love very dearly, and whom I will ask to marry me shortly, requires birth control to keep her from cramping severely and to allow her to be potentially receptive to conception. And who knows what else; I don't even comprehend it all, because I'm a man and just don't get it. My point is: maybe us guys just don't always get it. I'm not saying it's right for someone who just wants to have willy-nilly sex and have you pay for her contraception is right, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated than that. I didn't realize this could be the case before the love of my life came into my world, but she opened my eyes to the possibilities that not everything concerning birth control and women's rights is as reducible as a Rush Limbaugh segment. And not every woman can afford this treatment, which they sometimes require. My girlfriend requires it. She can afford it, but what about women who can't? Are they to just rot and retreat from social participation? What about their well-being? Are they to deal with sometimes intolerable pain simply because us guys think they just want to have sex all the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
And I don't know what Banks is getting at exactly: her ad is relatively vague; however, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what many women are up against when it comes time to their health. I'm just defending these women.
 
#6
#6
volprof said:
Before I ever dated a woman seriously, I thought that birth control was just a woman's device for insuring against pregnancy and an invitation for her to have lots of free sex. Since I've become a relationship man, however, I've learned that our typical notion of birth control is not all it's cracked up to be. My girlfriend, who I love very dearly, and whom I will ask to marry me shortly, requires birth control to keep her from cramping severely and to allow her to be potentially receptive to conception. And who knows what else; I don't even comprehend it all, because I'm a man and just don't get it. My point is: maybe us guys just don't always get it. I'm not saying it's right for someone who just wants to have willy-nilly sex and have you pay for her contraception is right, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated than that. I didn't realize this could be the case before the love of my life came into my world, but she opened my eyes to the possibilities that not everything concerning birth control and women's rights is as reducible as a Rush Limbaugh segment. And not every woman can afford this treatment, which they sometimes require. My girlfriend requires it. She can afford it, but what about women who can't? Are they to just rot and retreat from social participation? What about their well-being? Are they to deal with sometimes intolerable pain simply because us guys think they just want to have sex all the time?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of sources of affordable and free contraceptives without requiring that every possible entity provide it for free.

Put another way, I doubt women were "rotting and retreating from social participation" because some Catholic based organizations weren't giving it away for free as part of their insurance.

Now they are forced to do so and their religious views/convictions be damned.
 
#7
#7
volprof said:
Before I ever dated a woman seriously, I thought that birth control was just a woman's device for insuring against pregnancy and an invitation for her to have lots of free sex. Since I've become a relationship man, however, I've learned that our typical notion of birth control is not all it's cracked up to be. My girlfriend, who I love very dearly, and whom I will ask to marry me shortly, requires birth control to keep her from cramping severely and to allow her to be potentially receptive to conception. And who knows what else; I don't even comprehend it all, because I'm a man and just don't get it. My point is: maybe us guys just don't always get it. I'm not saying it's right for someone who just wants to have willy-nilly sex and have you pay for her contraception is right, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated than that. I didn't realize this could be the case before the love of my life came into my world, but she opened my eyes to the possibilities that not everything concerning birth control and women's rights is as reducible as a Rush Limbaugh segment. And not every woman can afford this treatment, which they sometimes require. My girlfriend requires it. She can afford it, but what about women who can't? Are they to just rot and retreat from social participation? What about their well-being? Are they to deal with sometimes intolerable pain simply because us guys think they just want to have sex all the time?
Click to expand...

Lots of different medicines (and things beyond medicine) would improve our health and comfort, but it doesn't mean that the government should pay for it.

Requiring health insurers to provide various services will only continue to drive up the costs of healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
volprof said:
Before I ever dated a woman seriously, I thought that birth control was just a woman's device for insuring against pregnancy and an invitation for her to have lots of free sex. Since I've become a relationship man, however, I've learned that our typical notion of birth control is not all it's cracked up to be. My girlfriend, who I love very dearly, and whom I will ask to marry me shortly, requires birth control to keep her from cramping severely and to allow her to be potentially receptive to conception. And who knows what else; I don't even comprehend it all, because I'm a man and just don't get it. My point is: maybe us guys just don't always get it. I'm not saying it's right for someone who just wants to have willy-nilly sex and have you pay for her contraception is right, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated than that. I didn't realize this could be the case before the love of my life came into my world, but she opened my eyes to the possibilities that not everything concerning birth control and women's rights is as reducible as a Rush Limbaugh segment. And not every woman can afford this treatment, which they sometimes require. My girlfriend requires it. She can afford it, but what about women who can't? Are they to just rot and retreat from social participation? What about their well-being? Are they to deal with sometimes intolerable pain simply because us guys think they just want to have sex all the time?
Click to expand...

Less government mayne. Government shouldn't require it regardless. I could care less about the religious debate. Let insurance companies decide for themselves and the free market will take care of the rest; those who feel it is necessary will choose the one that covers it forcing other to do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
How in the world do you get the idea that said birth control medicine should be provided by insurers? Insurance is a loss preventer and should have nothing to do with quality of life. All quality of life medicine should come at a cost and the actual consumer should eat that cost so the market could again be a market. I don't give a crap about the details. Every person on earth has some reason that something should be free.
 
#10
#10
volprof said:
Before I ever dated a woman seriously, I thought that birth control was just a woman's device for insuring against pregnancy and an invitation for her to have lots of free sex. Since I've become a relationship man, however, I've learned that our typical notion of birth control is not all it's cracked up to be. My girlfriend, who I love very dearly, and whom I will ask to marry me shortly, requires birth control to keep her from cramping severely and to allow her to be potentially receptive to conception. And who knows what else; I don't even comprehend it all, because I'm a man and just don't get it. My point is: maybe us guys just don't always get it. I'm not saying it's right for someone who just wants to have willy-nilly sex and have you pay for her contraception is right, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated than that. I didn't realize this could be the case before the love of my life came into my world, but she opened my eyes to the possibilities that not everything concerning birth control and women's rights is as reducible as a Rush Limbaugh segment. And not every woman can afford this treatment, which they sometimes require. My girlfriend requires it. She can afford it, but what about women who can't? Are they to just rot and retreat from social participation? What about their well-being? Are they to deal with sometimes intolerable pain simply because us guys think they just want to have sex all the time?
Click to expand...

Yes, birth control pills help regulate hormones and do help some women with the regularity and extent of their period. However, Planned Parenthood is but one among many places that a woman can get the pills. I would be interested to see some data that shows how many get their BCPs from Planned Parenthood vs just going to the pharmacy or health clinic.
 
#11
#11
BigPapaVol said:
How in the world do you get the idea that said birth control medicine should be provided by insurers? Insurance is a loss preventer and should have nothing to do with quality of life. All quality of life medicine should come at a cost and the actual consumer should eat that cost so the market could again be a market. I don't give a crap about the details. Every person on earth has some reason that something should be free.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I could see a health insurance company offering a wellness program that could include reduced costs for everything from birth control pills to gym memberships. This would potentially reduce catastrophic health care costs later through prevention. However, for me that would be offered as an option with appropriate payment.
 
#12
#12
YorkVol said:
I agree with this. I could see a health insurance company offering a wellness program that could include reduced costs for everything from birth control pills to gym memberships. This would potentially reduce catastrophic health care costs later through prevention. However, for me that would be offered as an option with appropriate payment.
Click to expand...

exactly and the insurer could weigh the cost / benefit of such programs. We've now bastardized insurance into this unrecognizable beast that is supposed to improve our quality of life for less than it actually costs.
 
#14
#14
Overstating the ad and misstating the emphasis and point of the ad. Pretty much par for the course for Romney supporters these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
bamawriter said:
I'd ask you to elaborate, but you won't.
Click to expand...

Remember - he knows what you are really thinking and really mean even if you don't. He knows what the electorate is really thinking and really mean when they make comments even if they don't. He can see the Matrix of code words behind innocent sounding comments and phrases from candidates and elected officials and he can tell everything about someone just by looking at them.

Don't ask for explanation - just sit back and marvel.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
Remember - he knows what you are really thinking and really mean even if you don't. He knows what the electorate is really thinking and really mean when they make comments even if they don't. He can see the Matrix of code words behind innocent sounding comments and phrases from candidates and elected officials and he can tell everything about someone just by looking at them.

Don't ask for explanation - just sit back and marvel.
Click to expand...

I'm glad he's burdened with those abilities. I'm not sure I would want that kind of superpower.
 
#20
#20
The point of the ad is that Romney and the GOP have demonstrated an intention to limit the availability of health care services for women and reproductive rights via Planned Parenthood. Romney opposes Planned Parenthood and the GOP in the House has repeatedly tried to limit or end it -- that's no secret. You can argue whether that means they are simply against abortion rights, don't want to support contraception, that its a religious thing, an ideological thing, a financial budget issue, and on and on. The point is, voting for Romney increases the odds that Planned Parenthood will lose its funding.

I noticed that the linked story does not, in fact, show the ad. The ad is really quite bland. Here's a link to it. Watch it. Its no big deal. Elizabeth Banks on Planned Parenthood, Women's Health, and Women's Rights - YouTube
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
The point of the ad is that Romney and the GOP have demonstrated an intention to limit the availability of health care services for women and reproductive rights via Planned Parenthood. Romney opposes Planned Parenthood and the GOP in the House has repeatedly tried to limit or end it -- that's no secret. You can argue whether that means they are simply against abortion rights, don't want to support contraception, that its a religious thing, an ideological thing, a financial budget issue, and on and on. The point is, voting for Romney increases the odds that Planned Parenthood will lose its funding.
Click to expand...

I can point out your mistake normally or call your statement above a complete, 100% fabrication - I'll go with the former. The GOP has not tried to end Planned Parenthood. They have sought to limit or end Federal funding for PP which is a fraction of it's budget. That is quite a difference.


I noticed that the linked story does not, in fact, show the ad. The ad is really quite bland. Here's a link to it. Watch it. Its no big deal. Elizabeth Banks on Planned Parenthood, Women's Health, and Women's Rights - YouTube
Click to expand...

It's typical scare tactics aimed at special interests. Also, many of the responses in this thread are a response to Volprofs plea for women not to rot or socially withdraw because of menstrual problems - several posters have pointed simply questioned the appropriate role of insurance and whether or not Volprofs GFs situation justifies the government mandating that all insurers provided contraceptive services free of charge.

Hope that helps.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
I can point out your mistake normally or call your statement above a complete, 100% fabrication - I'll go with the former. The GOP has not tried to end Planned Parenthood. They have sought to limit or end Federal funding for PP which is a fraction of it's budget. That is quite a difference.
Click to expand...



A "fraction" of its budget?

What "fraction"?
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
A quick search says about a 1/3.
Click to expand...


You don't think cutting over $300 million of their funding (yes, about a third of the total) would pose serious problems for PP to offer the services it does, and where it does?

Of course it would. That's all the ad does. Its one person -- a famous person -- explaining that when they weren't famous she used PP services. And she's saying it was for common health care problems of women, not abortions. That's the whole point.

On more than one occasion GOP lawmakers have dramatically over-claimed how much of what PP does is provision of abortions, And they have outright lied about federal money paying for abortions.

The ad defends continued funding of PP. Obama is for that. Romney is against it. The ad is perfectly reasonable and is accurate.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
You don't think cutting over $300 million of their funding (yes, about a third of the total) would pose serious problems for PP to offer the services it does, and where it does?

Of course it would. That's all the ad does. Its one person -- a famous person -- explaining that when they weren't famous she used PP services. And she's saying it was for common health care problems of women, not abortions. That's the whole point.

On more than one occasion GOP lawmakers have dramatically over-claimed how much of what PP does is provision of abortions, And they have outright lied about federal money paying for abortions.

The ad defends continued funding of PP. Obama is for that. Romney is against it. The ad is perfectly reasonable and is accurate.
Click to expand...

But it's not shutting them down like Dems want to claim
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top