The Battle Over Women Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-12/battle-over-women-voters
Women cast nearly ten million more votes than men in the last presidential race. Their traditional preference for Democrats helped put President Obama in the White House. but the female vote swung to the GOP in 2010, giving Republicans congrol of the House. Now there are signs of another shift. Recent polls show Republicans have been hurt by the current focus on contraception, abortion and women’s health issues. This week the President’s re-election campaign plans to launch an intensified effort to mobilize female voters. Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the eagle forum, join Diane to discuss the battle for and about women.
Guests
Terry O'Neill
president, National Organization for Women.
Phyllis Schlafly
founder and president, Eagle Forum
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Ms Dancy:
Religious schools were the early major educators of children and young adults pre-Constitution. I bet they taught church doctrine.
New Netherlands territory had their children go to the Dutch Reform Church schools. South had children go to parish schools. Government schools came much later.
Colleges were all church schools. Once again the founders knew that these schools were teaching Christian doctrine and didnot interfere like what we are blatantly seeing today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States
Ms Darcy wrote:
"I'm no expert on constitutional history or the role of charities in Old England, but have you ever read the Mass. Constitution of 1780, on which the US Constitution was based? "
Well, technically no because the US Constitution was NOT based on the MA Constitution. So, no, you are definitely no expert. It was based more specifically on the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey plan, NOT MA. James Madison is recognized as "the Father of the Constitution" and he was a VA representative to the convention.
You need a little remedial history schooling, I believe, Ms. Darcy.
Start by reading Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia".
This is the last time I am going to do this. For some reason this is the last thing I check after finishing all my other work, so late at night, tired and frustrated, yes. Drunk, no. Rambling, no. There is a difference in how money is recorded in accounting. Cost of doing business is different from retained earnings. A fact and that is the cogent explanation. Look up where employee benefits are recorded. Your supposed question about the penalty the ACA would impose is a red herring, nothing more, glad it makes you feel like you are making a point. to people who know, you aren't. The Blunt bill was voted down, it is not dead, and the issue is not dead. There is an election coming up that could change how the issue comes out. the Blunt bill could easily come back with different results. The supporters of it are not going to give up. Good luck monitoring the DR show and sloliciting arguments. This one is over.
This is the last time I am going to do this. For some reason this is the last thing I check after finishing all my other work, so late at night, tired and frustrated, yes. Drunk, no. Rambling, no. There is a difference in how money is recorded in accounting. Cost of doing business is different from retained earnings. A fact and that is the cogent explanation. Look up where employee benefits are recorded. Your supposed question about the penalty the ACA would impose is a red herring, nothing more, glad it makes you feel like you are making a point. to people who know, you aren't. The Blunt bill was voted down, it is not dead, and the issue is not dead. There is an election coming up that could change how the issue comes out. the Blunt bill could easily come back with different results. The supporters of it are not going to give up. Good luck monitoring the DR show and sloliciting arguments. This one is over.
" Good luck monitoring the DR show and sloliciting arguments"
Swell. Then I get the last word.
" There is a difference in how money is recorded in accounting. Cost of doing business is different from retained earnings. A fact and that is the cogent explanation. Look up where employee benefits are recorded."
Saying the same thing over and over again without any sort of elaboration does not move the discussion forward. vageiger, you are simply wrong and it is apparent that you DON'T KNOW that ALL EMPLOYEE BENFITS ARE NOT THE SAME. Pension benefits may be recorded as you say (see BAC). Health benefits are not. Health benefits are an expense and a cost of sales just like salaries and other employee-related expenses according to GAAP and FASB.
" Your supposed question about the penalty the ACA would impose is a red herring, nothing more, glad it makes you feel like you are making a point. to people who know, you aren't."
The point and the question was, if the money that was supposed to go to health insurance belongs to you (as compensation) and is deferred why don't you receive it when the company doesn't buy your insurance? That's not a "red herring" except to a person who can't answer the quesiton. Again, if this were a pension benfit you would receive it. But it isn't. It's a health benefit. Which is an expense. What I expect is, you read this on Daily Kos or Huffington Post and are just regurgitating something you are ignorant about.
Much like the poster "strudle" who pretends to be a law expert, you shoot your mouth off about things you know little. That makes you a blow-hard; a bloviator. And yes, that's an insult.
As I said, I thought I remembered this from my own accounting days, but who knows how things have changed. I met with my accountant this evening to review my tax returns and happened to think about this subject, so I asked him. He actually laughed. No, he said, health insurance is a regular expense like any other employee-related expense. The only thing that comes out of retained earnings is profits paid to owners, normally in the form of dividends ... he does the books for a multi-million dollar company, so I think he knows.
Vageiger, you're wrong on so many levels. I told you I would deconstruct your argument and I have.
I get so frustrated by the generalizations of "sides" of a debate regarding birth-control. If this was 1950 I could understand, but what is being proposed boils down to 'you can't control your reproductive rights, and you can't abort " this equates to a crazy sum of birthing without regard to the woman. Since when is the woman less significant than what is going on in her body? The entire debate birth-control/abortion negates the woman, and emphasizes ovulation and conception.
I. Am. Disgusted. with politicians both men and women.
Kara in Phoenix.
I am neither Republican or Democrat, nor do I really care what either party stands for, because in the end they vote for the money rather than the issue.
Phyllis is ridiculous. I am Catholic, I believe in both abortion and birth-control. Being Catholic doesn't define me, it spiritually guides and comforts me.
As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a joke. He is hypocritical in action and word. To engage is name in this debate is beneath all of you.
uberchk wrote:
"what is being proposed boils down to 'you can't control your reproductive rights, and you can't abort "
Not at all, Kara. A woman can do both of those things. It is just a quesiton of who pays for it.
"this equates to a crazy sum of birthing without regard to the woman. Since when is the woman less significant than what is going on in her body? "
I will ask a question I've asked here many times before and of many people on the left (at least on this question) which you seem to be. I've never gotten anyone to answer it.
Let's set contraception aside. We are certainly on the same page there. I am NOT Catholic. On the other hand, I am able to see the fundamental question with regard to the first amendment as it pertains to the church. What I personally believe, and as a Catholic, what you personally believe about bc or abortion is irrelevant. The church represents the body of believers and establishes certain tenets which its membership on an individual basis may or may not accept. So the quesiton isn't whether an individual Catholic or anyone has access to bc - they do, it's a question of who is forced to pay for it.
But now, on the quesiton of abortion. Once a pregancy is established, there become three interests at stake; the interest of the woman, the interest of her doctor, and the interest of the unborn. Both the woman and the doctor may look out after their own interests. But who speaks for the unborn? That is the question I have never found an answer to. Perhaps you will be the one to provide it.
My goodness, I could not believe the aggressive and totally alienating tone Phyllis Schlafly used during this discussion. She sounded like an angry conservative bystander grabbed off the street! If she wants to move people to her opinion she is most certainly not going to do so using the tone and the methods she used during this interview. Her conduct was childish and abrasive.
johnandere, you are missing the point even more. The problem here is whether or not you consider conceptional a medical necessity. It most certainly is. It's used for an array of reasons besides preventing a woman from becoming pregnant. Medical necessities are covered under our current health insurance policies. If you have an argument about paying for medical necessities, then you should argue that we don't even need health insurance. We should just pay for everything out of our own pockets.
As for abortion, the unborn child that is within the legal aborting period is dependent on the woman's body. This is going to sound crude, but do you have a problem with women getting rid of head lice? They're a living entity. They live off of the woman's body. How are they any different from an unborn child in the first trimester? An unborn child in the first trimester cannot survive without the woman's BODY. An unborn child in the first trimester cannot contribute to society when it is AN UNBORN CHILD. And unborn child in the first trimester without the woman's body will never contribute to society because it cannot survive without the woman's body. This is what makes an unborn child within the legal aborting period completely different from one that is not. If you want someone to speak for the unborn child that is within legal aborting period, you'd better get someone to speak for every living creature dependent of a woman's body that is removed.
I'm sure you noticed my strong repetition of abortion within the legal period of the fetus' age. I do not believe that a fetus should be aborted once it can sustain life outside the womb unless it is a danger to the woman's life. Until that period though, the right to abort should be a woman's right.
You still need a doctor's prescription to buy it cheaply at Walmart. Who will pay for that doctor's visit? AND they only sell a couple of kinds, which may not suit your particular needs. Your snarky uninformed remarks are irrelevant.