Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[hadespussercats]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Of course, there is no "fight to roll back" access to contraception. That's part of the crock of shit. We didn't give away contraceptives for free, generally speaking, in the past and are now trying to "roll that back." The push is to have contraceptives given away for free, or covered by insurance. There have been, of course, contraceptives given away by planned parenthood and other organizations, which is fine, and that hasn't been rolled back either. To say that the federal government ought not create a new mandate to require churches to pay for contraceptives is not "rolling back" anything.

And, another load of bullshit is the overuse of the word "access." People have had "access" to contraceptives to the same extent as they've had access to food and access to heat for their homes. There is no restriction on "access." It's at every drugstore in the country, and almost every supermarket (those that have drug store sections in them). Contraceptives can be ordered online. The morning after pill and condoms don't need prescriptions. A doctor's prescription is needed for birth control pills, but that's because of dosage issues. Nobody is advocating making birth control pills illegal.

As for reproductive rights, more women call themselves pro life than pro choice. Are they warring on themselves?

Citation, please.

Also, there are women who wouldn't get an abortion, who still use contraception. Don't conflate the two.

[Coito ergo sum]

"just to make sure that the insurance they offered their workers included coverage for contraception - " That is forcing them to pay for it.

And, requiring contraceptives to be covered is a new thing. Opposing that is not "rolling back."

There is no "chipping away," hades. There is resistance to expansion. Women HAVE equal access to health care. And, opposing mandated coverage for contraceptives -- like opposing mandated coverage for eye doctor visits or mandated coverage for dental care - is NOT a denial of equal access.

Also, if the law "made sure that the insurance they offered their workers included coverage for contraceptives" then how could the churches refuse to choose such a plan. There wouldn't be a n insurance plan that didn't offer that coverage, because the law would make sure the coverage was included in all insurance, not just some.

And, saying an insurance company has to offer coverage free of extra charge is nonsensical. They charge just becomes built into the basic premium. This sort of language is the nonsense we hear from the left which pretends, nearly constantly, that things don't cost money.

[Coito ergo sum]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Of course, there is no "fight to roll back" access to contraception. That's part of the crock of shit. We didn't give away contraceptives for free, generally speaking, in the past and are now trying to "roll that back." The push is to have contraceptives given away for free, or covered by insurance. There have been, of course, contraceptives given away by planned parenthood and other organizations, which is fine, and that hasn't been rolled back either. To say that the federal government ought not create a new mandate to require churches to pay for contraceptives is not "rolling back" anything.

And, another load of bullshit is the overuse of the word "access." People have had "access" to contraceptives to the same extent as they've had access to food and access to heat for their homes. There is no restriction on "access." It's at every drugstore in the country, and almost every supermarket (those that have drug store sections in them). Contraceptives can be ordered online. The morning after pill and condoms don't need prescriptions. A doctor's prescription is needed for birth control pills, but that's because of dosage issues. Nobody is advocating making birth control pills illegal.

As for reproductive rights, more women call themselves pro life than pro choice. Are they warring on themselves?

Citation, please.

Also, there are women who wouldn't get an abortion, who still use contraception. Don't conflate the two.

I didn't conflate the two. I separated the two. You mentioned both contraceptives and reproduction. I addressed both.

My source is Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more- ... -time.aspx scroll to "Gender Agreement."

[hadespussercats]

"just to make sure that the insurance they offered their workers included coverage for contraception - " That is forcing them to pay for it.

And, requiring contraceptives to be covered is a new thing. Opposing that is not "rolling back."

There is no "chipping away," hades. There is resistance to expansion. Women HAVE equal access to health care. And, opposing mandated coverage for contraceptives -- like opposing mandated coverage for eye doctor visits or mandated coverage for dental care - is NOT a denial of equal access.

Also, if the law "made sure that the insurance they offered their workers included coverage for contraceptives" then how could the churches refuse to choose such a plan. There wouldn't be a n insurance plan that didn't offer that coverage, because the law would make sure the coverage was included in all insurance, not just some.

And, saying an insurance company has to offer coverage free of extra charge is nonsensical. They charge just becomes built into the basic premium. This sort of language is the nonsense we hear from the left which pretends, nearly constantly, that things don't cost money.

Coito, you're wrong. But I don't have time for this.


Bla bla bla bla quote blah bla quote.

No one wins.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, Hades - you are. You don't understand what the Obama Administration proposed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nobody called her an "advisor on women's issues," have they? He said he discusses things with his wife.

Actually, you're not paying attention:

"My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me,” Romney told newspaper editors, “and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Clearly Mitt regards her as such. His wife "reports" to him on women's concerns. Do you classify a conversation between spouses as a "report"? No, that wording is clearly intended to convey the connotation of in-depth understanding.

Was the word "advisor" explicitly used? No. Is that an accurate summation, used in order to avoid teeth-pulling definitional quibbles such as this one? Ideally.

He didn't tout her as his advisor.

See above.

And, I think it's fine to question his wife's ability to provide insight.

What then is the issue?

As far as Obama goes, do you have instances where he's whined about how the media has treated Michelle?

Not offhand.

Then you have your answer regarding my son not having Obama's ear. We clear on that now?

Mainly that is because the media treats both the President and the First Lady with kid gloves. Such a statement would never come from a Hilary Rosen's mouth about Michelle Obama.

Holy shit, biased media outlets? Are you sure about that?

She doesn't hold that status. She's the guy's wife, and they all say they talk about stuff with their wives, and value their wives' opinions on various topics.

And, no first Lady has to worry about a "shift" ending or day care closing. To require that of Anne Romney is to hold her to a higher standard. Michelle Obama never had to worry about that either.

Obama didn't tout his wife as "reporting to [him]" on women's concerns.

It's all cheap ploys. Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

Well, that's sure to be a controversial opinion there. As far as the Dems inventing the "war on women", though ... you'll have to present evidence if you wish to convince me of that talking point. I'm pretty sure that the differential treatment of women predates the Democratic Party. It's pretty cute how you try to condemn the entire system, and then still inject partisan flubbery into it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, if you think there isn't a push to roll back reproductive rights for women, you should perhaps read these articles:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01 ... -last-year
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13 ... n-20120414
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27 ... ml?_r=2&hp

Those are active rollbacks of settled freedoms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nobody called her an "advisor on women's issues," have they? He said he discusses things with his wife.

Actually, you're not paying attention:

"My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me,” Romney told newspaper editors, “and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

He doesn't call her an adviser there. Calling her an adviser implies that she is holding some kind of advisory post. The damning quote you posted was that Romney says his wife has "the occasion" to campaign on her own and with Mitt. She reports to him her experience in the occasional campaigning that women are concerned about the economy. He clearly is saying that she's learning that on the campaign trail, and telling him what she learned.

What the heck does that have to do with her background? It could be a single, gay male, with no children, reporting the same thing back to Mitt. Nobody would disqualify that single, gay male from being able to report to Mitt what women were communicating to him. And, that wouldn't make him some sort of special adviser on women's issues.

Clearly Mitt regards her as such.

You seem to be expanding the quote beyond its boundaries.

His wife "reports" to him on women's concerns.

Sure, and why not? Anyone working on his campaign would report back the sentiment of the public. A black man could report back what he's hearing from white voters. So what?

Do you classify a conversation between spouses as a "report"? No, that wording is clearly intended to convey the connotation of in-depth understanding.

Bull -- when someone "reports back" to you, they just tell you what they found out or heard.
/

Was the word "advisor" explicitly used? No. Is that an accurate summation, used in order to avoid teeth-pulling definitional quibbles such as this one? Ideally.

Not based on the quote you gave. That looks more like a guy saying, "Hey, my wife goes out and mixes with women a lot on the campaign trail, and she reports back to me what they say they're concerned about." You try to turn that into a Cabinet post, where she's writing confidential memos.

He didn't tout her as his advisor.

See above.

See above.

And, I think it's fine to question his wife's ability to provide insight.

What then is the issue?[/quote]

Here the insight is so general, that the crticisms of her ability to give it are just silly and overtly partisan. As I noted above, Mitt was very clear that his wife has occasion to work on the campaign, and she comes back and reports to him what she finds that women are interested in. That doesn't require some sort of monumental career accomplishment. She's not trying to tell anyone what HER experience was. She's reporting what women are telling her. A man could do that too.

As far as Obama goes, do you have instances where he's whined about how the media has treated Michelle?

Not offhand.

Then you have your answer regarding my son not having Obama's ear. We clear on that now?

As mud. What are you talking about?

Mainly that is because the media treats both the President and the First Lady with kid gloves. Such a statement would never come from a Hilary Rosen's mouth about Michelle Obama.

Holy shit, biased media outlets? Are you sure about that?

Yes.

She doesn't hold that status. She's the guy's wife, and they all say they talk about stuff with their wives, and value their wives' opinions on various topics.

And, no first Lady has to worry about a "shift" ending or day care closing. To require that of Anne Romney is to hold her to a higher standard. Michelle Obama never had to worry about that either.

Obama didn't tout his wife as "reporting to [him]" on women's concerns.

He only appointed her to a special post as some sort of "healthy living spokesperson" to schools, and the public, on health and wellness and weight loss issues. Where is she qualified for that? Is she a certified nutritionist? Not likely. Nobody

It's all cheap ploys. Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

Well, that's sure to be a controversial opinion there. As far as the Dems inventing the "war on women", though ... you'll have to present evidence if you wish to convince me of that talking point. I'm pretty sure that the differential treatment of women predates the Democratic Party. It's pretty cute how you try to condemn the entire system, and then still inject partisan flubbery into it.

They are the ones who started saying that the Republicans had a war on women. Well, unless you think the 'publicans started saying it about themselves.

I know the differential treatment of women predates the Democratic Party. I'm talking about the labeling of the Republicans as having a war on women.

[Svartalf]

I agree.. I also think there is something incredibly selfish about it. Going from parents straight to hubby with no chance for self growth of self-sufficiency? How can a woman get married and do that? I would feel guilty buying anything for myself if I hadn't contributed towards the household income..

Yup GF and I were discussing this today. Far too limited a life experience and no chance to develop an independent self or self reliance.

Almost every successful presidency has been a team effort and can you imagine someone so sheltered as it never had worked for anyone being first lady....

I'm surprised the cannon are not out on the whole Mormon Chosen One mine field that lurks - the dutiful wifey is just part of that whole schtick.

Great article here..

Monday, Jan 30, 2012 12:00 AM EST
Romney and the White Horse Prophecy

Why his Mormonism is a legitimate campaign issue

The White Horse Prophecy foresaw Mormons in politics. (Credit: iStockphoto/66North/Reuters)


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_an ... _prophecy/

..and if you've read any of the actual mormon history instead of the 1984ed revision you know how whacked the whole thing is right from the get go. ( mind you most organized religions are anyways but this "new thang" is/was pretty wild )

Interesting.

Without addressing the issues spoken of in the article, and even assuming that the guy is fairly sane and is not going to try and make the US a mormon state or act on the more outlandish beliefs while in office, I still have two problems.
a) the guy is known to give large amounts of money to the church, directly AND in devious ways... will he do that too when he got his mitts on the state coffers?
(I guess he could unless he faced a revolt from Congress)

b), the mormon church has been known to meddle and lobby with secular politics. The story of California Proposition 8 speaks for itself. So has his campaign been fairly funded? (not that he absolutely needs their help, but that never hurts), and what will they lobby for if he becomes president? what policies will they push for, and very possibly get?

Remember one thing... the more outlandish the beliefs of a so called religion are, the more worldly and power hungry the top leadership actually is.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, if you think there isn't a push to roll back reproductive rights for women, you should perhaps read these articles:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01 ... -last-year
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13 ... n-20120414
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27 ... ml?_r=2&hp

Those are active rollbacks of settled freedoms.

The "rollback" that I disputed was of contraception. I do know that there is a push to limit abortions and to roll back Roe v Wade. Hades' statement was that the opposition to insurance coverage for contraceptives was a "rollback." That isn't the case, since it was never covered by insurance before. It's something new.

One of your articles:

Several States Forbid Abortion After 20 Weeks

Yeah, so? So does Great Britain Ireland has no abortions at all, except maybe to save the life of the mother. Spain, Portugal and Poland only allow abortions to save the life and health of the mother. Finland allows for health and life of the mother, and for economic and social reasons. Most European countries put limits -- between 12 and 24 weeks or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

[Thumpalumpacus]

He doesn't call her an adviser there. Calling her an adviser implies that she is holding some kind of advisory post. [...]

I'm talking about the labeling of the Republicans as having a war on women.

Clearly you have much to learn about the difference between implication and inference, and connotation and denotation, and quite frankly, your education isn't my responsibility.

If you don't like my assessment of Anne Romney's qualifications to report on the status of women in America, have a drink, take a deep breath, and get over it. You obviously have other considerations which are coloring the way that you're reading my posting, and I'm uninterested in feeding your projections.

Yeah, so? So does Great Britain Ireland has no abortions at all, except maybe to save the life of the mother. Spain, Portugal and Poland only allow abortions to save the life and health of the mother. Finland allows for health and life of the mother, and for economic and social reasons. Most European countries put limits -- between 12 and 24 weeks or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

So what? I'm American, and it's freedoms and their rollback here that I'm concerned with.

If you're concerned about those other nations, take it up with them. It's this sort of introduction of the irrelevant that gives me pause in engaging you any further. You obviously are looking to bicker. I have better things to do.

Thanks, and have a good day.

[maiforpeace]

[Coito ergo sum]

He doesn't call her an adviser there. Calling her an adviser implies that she is holding some kind of advisory post. [...]

I'm talking about the labeling of the Republicans as having a war on women.

Clearly you have much to learn about the difference between implication and inference, and connotation and denotation, and quite frankly, your education isn't my responsibility.

I'm pretty sure that it is you that need to learn a thing or two. For example, the statement does not imply that she is an "adviser." But, you are by all means making an unwarranted inference from the language used.

He never actually calls her an adviser. You and others call her that, and then you leap from there to suggest that advisers need to be vetted. Nothing in his comments, however, fairly imply anything other than that his wife has been out "occasionally" on campaigns with him and on her own and she's interacted with women. She reports back what those women said they cared about, and it was predominantly the economy.

Whether YOU want to pretend that means something else is purely up to you. I can't stop you. You can leap to whatever unwarranted conclusions you like, and you can put whatever words you want to in his mouth.

If you don't like my assessment of Anne Romney's qualifications to report on the status of women in America, have a drink, take a deep breath, and get over it. You obviously have other considerations which are coloring the way that you're reading my posting, and I'm uninterested in feeding your projections.

I haven't projected in the least. You have, of course, done just that when you made your so-called "inferences." I don't need to get over anything. This is a discussion of this issue, and you could likewise have never chimed in to counter my opinion You could have just had a drink, taken a deep breath and gotten over it. Apparently, your of the view that your opinions ought not be debated, and that once you've said your peace, we just need to take a deep breath and get over it.

Yeah, so? So does Great Britain Ireland has no abortions at all, except maybe to save the life of the mother. Spain, Portugal and Poland only allow abortions to save the life and health of the mother. Finland allows for health and life of the mother, and for economic and social reasons. Most European countries put limits -- between 12 and 24 weeks or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

So what? I'm American, and it's freedoms and their rollback here that I'm concerned with.

There has always been, since Roe v Wade, fluctuating limitations on abortions here and there. Roe v Wade never allowed unrestricted abortion anytime and anywhere. Third trimester abortions always could be limited or made illegal under state law, and second trimester abortions could have reasonable regulations that are narrowly tailored, and in the first trimester, abortion was pretty much unrestricted. That still remains. What we have is a tug-of-war at the margins, where States have more or less restrictions on and around 20 weeks.

If you're concerned about those other nations, take it up with them. It's this sort of introduction of the irrelevant that gives me pause in engaging you any further. You obviously are looking to bicker. I have better things to do.

Thanks, and have a good day.

This isn't bickering, this is actually addressing the fucking issue. Address the irrelevant? Dude - I never even alleged that there wasn't an effort to roll back abortion rights. I was very clear on that. I referred to insurance coverage for contraception. Remember? You then jumped in with one of your silly "inferences" and tried to prove to me that there really was an effort to roll back abortion rights. Given that I never claimed there wasn't such an attempt to roll back abortion rights, your efforts were the epitome of introducing the irrelevant.

Of course, lots of religious people want to roll back roe v wade. That's been the case ever since roe v wade. Whoever said it wasn't?

Now, you jump in here and accuse me of making an argument I never made.

You also chime in about the topic of the OP, start an argument with me about it, and then when I counter your statements you basically tell me to shut up.

Nice work.

[macdoc]

Coito ergo sum wrote: Yeah, so? So does Great Britain Ireland has no abortions at all, except maybe to save the life of the mother. Spain, Portugal and Poland only allow abortions to save the life and health of the mother. Finland allows for health and life of the mother, and for economic and social reasons. Most European countries put limits -- between 12 and 24 weeks or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

and you
re dreaming in technicolour if you think those countries don't have abortions....what they don't have is above board medically undertaken abortions.....the reality is there are lots of knitting needle, coat hanger and quack abortions.

The choice is not between abortions and no abortions.
The choice is between safe abortions and unsafe ones.

Women will STILL choose and its no fucking concern of males the choice she makes. The stupid makes can only put her at more or less risk by their legislative choices.......

[Warren Dew]

I agree.. I also think there is something incredibly selfish about it. Going from parents straight to hubby with no chance for self growth of self-sufficiency?

That makes no more sense than would saying that women who choose to remain childless have "no chance for self growth" due to not having children.