A Most Bizarre way of Stating Things

[Accountable]

I don't have time to comment on the whole article right now, so I'll post it, hope you all comment, and post my comments later.

Exerpts:

Rosa Rodriguez is not happy living on the government dole.


She got pregnant at 19 and never finished college or moved beyond a string of low-paying jobs. Now 28, she's unemployed and a single mother of two living in public housing on the far West Side.


The roughly $8,000 she earns in child support qualifies her for food stamps. To qualify in Texas for Medicaid, however, she'd have to earn less than half of that.


She knows another baby would make things worse.


So for the past few years, Rodriguez has been one of about 130,000 women in Texas who receive free birth control and preventative health care through the Women's Health Program, a Medicaid waiver on the brink of dissolution because Republican lawmakers are not willing to allow Planned Parenthood to participate.

[...]

On Tuesday, Rodriguez sat on a couch in her cluttered apartment, her tiny balcony overlooking the barbed-wire perimeter of Lackland Air Force Base.

As her 4-year-old daughter ran from room to room, she recalled wanting to join the Air Force after high school.


Her teenage pregnancy deferred that plan. Five years later, she quit San Antonio College when caring for her second child became a burden.
She receives contraception from a local Planned Parenthood clinic. If the WHP ends this month, she'll lose access.


“More than likely,” she said, “I'll end up pregnant.”​

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ne...ying-women-s-health-3372471.php#ixzz1nxWB8mc4
​

 

[porterjack]

How much would she have to pay to buy contraception, assuming her partner was not willing to buy condoms. The very notion of parenthood being an obstacle to either education or employment is offensive, a factor of course but an "excuse" never

 

[BornReady]

How much would she have to pay to buy contraception, assuming her partner was not willing to buy condoms.

I'm guessing she's on the pill. Not sure what that costs but I'd guess $20 or $30 a month.

She may not be correct that she would be worse off by having another baby. My wife's aunt told me she was better off after the third because her welfare went up more than her expenses. That was 25 years ago though. It may be different now. But having a baby to increase your welfare check is a lousy reason to have one.

 

[Accountable]

I'd forgotten about this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rosa Rodriguez is not happy living on the government dole.


She got pregnant at 19 and never finished college or moved beyond a string of low-paying jobs. Now 28, she's unemployed and a single mother of two living in public housing on the far West Side.

"Got pregnant". Implies she had no real responsibility, played no part in it. She just got pregnant. Bad luck, I guess.

The roughly $8,000 she earns in child support qualifies her for food stamps. To qualify in Texas for Medicaid, however, she'd have to earn less than half of that.

"Earns"?? How did she "earn" the $8,000? By "getting" pregnant? She didn't earn the money. The guy that wrote the check earned it. She received it. Big difference between earning a paycheck and receiving support. For those of you at risk of an embolism right now, I'm not saying her children don't deserve the $8K. I'm commenting on the phrasing.

She knows another baby would make things worse.

But she doesn't seem to know that getting pregnant involves a voluntary action on her part - an action she can choose not to do.

So for the past few years, Rodriguez has been one of about 130,000 women in Texas who receive free birth control and preventative health care through the Women's Health Program, a Medicaid waiver on the brink of dissolution because Republican lawmakers are not willing to allow Planned Parenthood to participate.

... and in no way prevents her from obtaining free and/or low-cost contraception.

On Tuesday, Rodriguez sat on a couch in her cluttered apartment, her tiny balcony overlooking the barbed-wire perimeter of Lackland Air Force Base.

Gee, ya think the author wants us to see her as an innocent person in prison?

As her 4-year-old daughter ran from room to room, she recalled wanting to join the Air Force after high school.

Her teenage pregnancy deferred that plan. Five years later, she quit San Antonio College when caring for her second child became a burden.

And there you have it. Caring for one's own children is a burden. Damn the government for getting her pregnant and burdening her with two kids and abandoning her when she only earns $8K!

She receives contraception from a local Planned Parenthood clinic. If the WHP ends this month, she'll lose access.

This is, in layman's terms, is what's known as a lie.

“More than likely,” she said, “I'll end up pregnant.”

Yes, because as has already been established, she has no idea how pregnancy occurs.
​

 

[clancy]

She should be given free birth control. This broad is so dumb she claims she is just getting pregnant like it is a mystery. Doesn't she know what is causing it?

 

[Accountable]

One is given free birth control.

I agree with the rest of your post.

An old guy told me the other day that one of the best and cheapest forms of birth control is an aspirin. That's right, a common aspirin. All the woman has to do is squeeze the pill between her knees. :ninja

 

[Stone]

...........................

[/COLOR]This is, in layman's terms, is what's known as a lie.

..............
​

The context was 'access to free contraceptives', not the ability to access contraceptives.

But you're focusing on an individual, not the heart of the story. And yes, the article is structured as a tear-jerker argument.

The message:

Federal officials say it's illegal for the state to limit any qualified provider willing to serve these women. Rather than permit Planned Parenthood clinics to participate, Republican lawmakers are allowing the program to end.
The clinics offering these services, however, do not provide abortions.

By swinging the axe only at family planning, conservative lawmakers are not reducing abortions, but rather cutting off access to birth control.

The inevitable consequence will be more of the abortions they profess to abhor, as well as bigger, poorer families consuming more state funds through social services.

It's about unintended consequences while currying dogmatic acceptance ( in this case religious fundamentalism that's current in the Republican party ) with the voter.

 

[Accountable]

The context was 'access to free contraceptives', not the ability to access contraceptives.

Yes, I know.

It's about unintended consequences while currying dogmatic acceptance ( in this case religious fundamentalism that's current in the Republican party ) with the voter.

The federal government was never intended to be a charity, nor has the constitution been amended to allow it to become one.

 

[Stone]

Yes, I know.

The federal government was never intended to be a charity, nor has the constitution been amended to allow it to become one.

The federal government was never intended to be a charity, nor has the constitution been amended to allow it to become one.

I can still see the article went over your head.

The article was about unintended consequences, not the Constitution.

 

[Accountable]

I can still see the article went over your head.

The article was about unintended consequences, not the Constitution.

Save your insults for someone that gives a fuck.
The article was a slanted bit of pap designed to cause an emotional response for something that isn't legal in the first place.

 

[Stone]

Save your insults for someone that gives a fuck.
The article was a slanted bit of pap designed to cause an emotional response for something that isn't legal in the first place.

I fully realize you don't give a fuck and that's on you.
The article was pap designed for an emotional response and you still don't have a fucking clue as to what the article was about.
Until recently, you made it an attack on an individual and you still don't address the root issue......the politics in question has the ability to actually make the situation worse....a concept that Republicans already carry a banner for......anti abortion.

 

[Accountable]

I fully realize you don't give a fuck and that's on you.
The article was pap designed for an emotional response and you still don't have a fucking clue as to what the article was about.
Until recently, you made it an attack on an individual and you still don't address the root issue......the politics in question has the ability to actually make the situation worse....a concept that Republicans already carry a banner for......anti abortion.

Feel free to write your tax deductible check to Planned Parenthood.
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SP...tmctr=(not provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=60113069

 

[Stone]

Feel free to write your tax deductible check to Planned Parenthood.
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift&__utma=1.2068198198.1331120643.1331120643.1331260270.2&__utmb=1.3.10.1331260270&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1331260270.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=60113069

Indeed........but you still don't get the point of the article.

 

[Stone]

Save your insults for someone that gives a fuck.
The article was a slanted bit of pap designed to cause an emotional response for something that isn't legal in the first place.

for something that isn't legal in the first place.

You do seem to parrot that line a lot, but when I do a quick search on the legality of Medicaid, I find that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue.......way back in 1937.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/267101/20111214/ron-paul-2012-candidate-calls-medicare-medicaid.htm

So...it is 'legal', contrary to your claim. It's legal until the Supreme Court decides to reverse their original decision on Constitutionality.

Are you in favor of disbanding the concept of a Supreme Court?

 

[Accountable]

I'm in favor of reviewing past Supreme Court decisions to verify if they strictly and objectively support the Constitution and thus the rule of law.

 

[Stone]

I'm in favor of reviewing past Supreme Court decisions to verify if they strictly and objectively support the Constitution and thus the rule of law.

Who do you think should be responsible for that legal review ?

If it's some other entity than the Supreme Court, what element of the Constitution grants it's existence and right to make Constitutional rulings beyond presenting personal opinions?



There are SC decisions I don't like.......but they are law until decided otherwise.
It's always been my understanding that the SC has the final word on Constitutionality.
Do you feel otherwise?

 

[Accountable]

The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Power. It is an equal branch of the federal gov't, subject to checks and balances just like the other two. Beyond that, the current Supreme Court is under no obligation to adopt past SC decisions without question. Their only basis for decision should be the Constitution. They should not look to case law to make any decisions at all.

 

[Joe the meek]

Everyone can have a run of bad luck.

I just found it interesting how she is now willing to stop at having a third child, but can't help but wonder what caused the second child?

Children cost time and money. May sound harsh, but that is a reality.

 

[Stone]

The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Power. It is an equal branch of the federal gov't, subject to checks and balances just like the other two. Beyond that, the current Supreme Court is under no obligation to adopt past SC decisions without question. Their only basis for decision should be the Constitution. They should not look to case law to make any decisions at all.

Who is this new department.....Supreme Power?

It is an equal branch of the federal gov't

Are you stating the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government have the right to judge their own decisions?

Beyond that, the current Supreme Court is under no obligation to adopt past SC decisions without question.

Indeed.
But the decisions do stand until challenged and only reversed if the SC so decides.
A point you seem to continually skip over when claiming a particular decision is illegal.

Their only basis for decision should be the Constitution.

Indeed....so?

They should not look to case law to make any decisions at all.

Article 1, Section 8 isn't case law.

 

[JudoChop]

I see a gap in the market for re-usable condoms.