By Lacee Alysse
“What if it were a rural situation?” Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates says to the question she still believes is hypothetical. “Again, I’ll ask you,” said the legislator looking to pass a law in reference to what to do when a baby is born alive in a botched abortion. “So, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
“I really don’t know how to answer that…” she replied at an apparent loss for words. It isn’t so much that she is a cold and heartless person as it would seem for answering in such a removed manner. It is far more disturbing that she apparently has no authority to answer that question. When another lawmaker asks her specifically what Planned Parenthood does when such a scenario happens at its clinics, she simply said, “I do not have that information.” Some might argue that she is not a doctor and therefore is unaware of general procedures in such situations, but clearly there is another reason she dare not wade into those murky verbal waters when Snow had said earlier that Planned Parenthood’s primary objection to the legislation is that it doesn’t include a “neutrality clause” that would make clear it does not change the legal status of a baby before being born alive.
Later, a popular spokesperson and supporter of the Democratic Party and the Planned Parenthood organization was asked to respond to Snow’s response to that question on Fox News. While admitting Ms. Snow was for a lack of better words an idiot, she supported the woman’s delusion by saying “that sort of thing just doesn’t happen”. She insists the situation where a baby is actually born instead of aborted within the womb as planned is pure fiction. I guess she didn’t understand the question either.
Let’s ask the question in the simplest of terms. The question is as all human beings with ears and souls can understand: What do abortion doctors do when a fetus is unexpectedly born in to the world and is laying on the table struggling for life? The liberal, secular, pro-abortion, ultra-feminist agenda crusaders do not acknowledge this question. It does not exist to them. It is strictly a hypothetical.
Well it was…until now. While the science of what is actually going on in a woman’s womb on a day to day basis in regards to the growth of an “in-womb human” is slowly catching up to them, we may have just gotten a brutal dose of insight. The precious veil that pro-abortionists so firmly hold over the horror of what has been sucking women in for decades, is about to fall.
A doctor has been found to have been botching abortions, killing the live babies that are delivered, and occasionally killing women with dirty tools and malpractice. It is unknown at this point how many women came to this man, money in hand, knowing what a monster he really was, but when his motto according to the physician himself was “to give them a guaranteed death” I have to think this was a man who had all the excuses in the world to be and do evil. And what I mean by that is that the society he was living in gave him no reason to fear he wasn’t doing what he should. Doctors in the area familiar with Dr. Kermit Gosnell, estimate he must have aborted or murdered over 40,000 fetuses and/or babies, or whatever you feel comfortable calling tiny, helpless humans. When they are done counting the amputated baby feet, heads and other body parts he collected as trophies, they’ll have a more accurate estimate.
Now back to the question, now not so hypothetical. Out of all of these thousands of women who paid a licensed physician to end their pregnancy, if there had been just one that had not been over-sedated and had been aware of the unexpected live birth of her child and she had requested that the child be called an ambulance, should the law require the abortion clinic to have done so or use the doctor’s discretion or neither?
Still, there is silence. From the left, from the pro-abortionists and not surprisingly, there is no comment from the Whitehouse. He apparently doesn’t have authority to speak about this either. “The President cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.” says Jay Carney, Whitehouse spokesperson. Although, the Whitehouse is able to comment on what they think caused the bomber of the Boston Marathon to do what he/she/it did. Problems with taxes are what I think they threw out there. Odd no one in the Whitehouse feels compelled to say a word about a gruesome crime scene where authorities have found without a doubt that an enormous, historic amount of babies were born in an abortion clinic and then killed.
“That just doesn’t happen.” I keep hearing in my head. Why on earth would she believe that this situation just doesn’t happen; not even on occasion in the abortion business? What health care business has a zero fault rate? What are the odds of 750 different business locations each conducting on average 40,000 different business transactions and not one of them ever having a total halt of the line every once in a while? I’m not as convinced of the 100% as the pro-abortionists seem to be.
40,000 children wanted or not, are not in this world and died horrible deaths because a doctor was supported like an asset to the community. Maybe not in a traditional sense, but we know he was supported financially at the very least. The community wanted him providing his services, no questions asked. There is no other way around that strange fact. As bizarre as that sounds, what exactly makes Dr. Gosnell’s situation so special? How many other community supported abortion physicians have failed to perfectly rid the mother of the entity inside of her and had to make that God-like decision on their own? How many more deaths in this manner will hypothetically be okay with your community? What about if they were 45 hypothetical minutes away from an Emergency room as Ms. Snow proposes?
What the spokesperson for Planned Parenthood on Fox said later in the interview was even more interesting. “Well, this is what women used to be subjected to in back allies and the like.” Implying, the situation would be like this all the time if we didn’t have legal abortion doctors. Yes, it did used to be a lot harder to kill your own baby for no medical reason whatsoever. It’s called infanticide in the real world and it is against the law.
If you have a legitimate medical problem that threatens your life eminently, abortion is and always has been a medically necessary and legal operation to have. If this unfortunately happens to you, you usually are so sick you barely even comprehend you’ve had to have an abortion. If you survived, when you woke up the natural grief of losing your child early would hit you and never leave you again.
How do I know? Well, I can tell you that without a doubt, if it were not for abortion, I would not be here today. My mother developed a rare form of preeclampsia during her first pregnancy that began to shut her organs down one by one, nearly killing her and killing the four month old baby within her. The next time my mother became pregnant, the same symptoms began to appear and the doctors fearing the worst highly recommended an abortion. They did this knowing they were saving her life. My mother wanted babies so badly, but it was clear she was not going to be able to have them if she lost another child due to preeclampsia, had further complications or died. The abortion was the only way to stop the death sentence that is preeclampsia. Luckily, my mother was eventually able to get pregnant again with me and have a normal healthy pregnancy. I was born and am now able to write this article. How about that?
The pregnancy after me was unfortunately plagued by preeclampsia again and she was again forced to abort that baby too. After that, there was no choice but to get her tubes tied. She now feels extremely blessed to have me, but as an only child, I know better than anyone that having just one child was never her intention. It was almost like she had let me down in some way, by not being able to give me a sibling. The truth is she was permanently scarred by the abortions of her children even though they were absolutely necessary. Psychologists say, nearly every woman is, whether they talk about it or not.
Men tell the women not to think about it like they do and women don’t know how not to think about it. Eventually, life forces them to store their grief in a giant ball of guilt and burry it way down deep in their gut. As women we have a natural ability to do that. We do that so we can get along with things, but don’t expect us to like it or even really to be mentally stable if you want the sad reality of it. It is outrageous that women are forced, whether physically or by social pressure to keep this experience to themselves. But this is the society we live in today. This is what kept this doctor practicing murder in an abortion clinic under wraps. The pro-choice agenda seems to be the federalization of neutral body parts. In other words, they want it legally written as though women have nothing special that allows them to bear children and therefore the sentiment of thinking that is misogynistic in nature. This is a true war on women and it is happening.
But here is where the light is in this horrifyingly dark situation. Pro-abortionists and the agenda driven liberal left know perfectly well that this question is not hypothetical. They were just hoping and fighting with all their might that no one would ever ask it. They have relied upon the silence of women and men alike who have a whole slew of reasons they don’t want to talk about abortion.
Now as human beings we are confronted with this demonstration of pure human destruction through mainstream media. People of all perspectives on this issue are stopping to try and get a grasp on this. New York Times and others are questioning why others aren’t covering the story, even if it’s for traditional reasons. Sorry, but “if it bleeds it leads”. As Kirstin Powers of The Daily Beast, passionately argues, “It should be front page news.” But for now, as inconspicuous as it is at the moment, probably due to the focus on recent terrorist acts on our country in the last few days, The New York Times commentary alone is all we need to see that very soon a new vain of this issue is emerging and we will have to answer this question for ourselves; writing it down somewhere, eventually into the law books and maybe less thought about, but no less significant, the insurance companies’ regulations books.
Regardless this horrible event will affect how we proceed as a nation. Mark my words. The beautiful part of this is that we don’t have to wait for pro-abortionist to answer. Like Pesci in My Cousin Vinnie says to the star witness in the prosecution’s case, “It’s okay. They know.” And humans like me are beginning to write it down. Here I go!
The answer, in case you are wondering is: Yes, you send the newborn to an emergency room no matter how long it takes to get there. The problem the crusaders have with admitting this is because the answer reveals there is no notable scientific difference between a child in or out of the womb. This is a definition they don’t want anyone to speak of or write down; especially lawmakers and insurance companies. And also in case you were wondering there is no such thing as a post birth abortion. What this refers to is the intentional killing of a live baby by request. This is against the law and is absolutely the business of the politicians and legislators, as pro-abortionists tend to argue it is not. Planned Parenthood had no right to lobby against the legislators on this case and now they have really trapped themselves in a corner I’m not so sure they can get out of.
I just feel like repeating myself today. Maybe you havn’t read this before?
So, Obamacare supporters, if you think you are on the winning side of things let me turn you around so you can see the back side of your head. Here’s my little mirror. Do you see it? It’s the bullet hole smoking in the middle.
We were sitting in the bathroom stall with a shaky gun pointed at our head and Obama just broke in and went ahead and pulled the trigger for us. If you hadn’t heard the “great news” just in time for the 4th of July holiday, we are about to be Canada, which is basically the same as committing suicide for any real American.
My husband’s boss is Canadian and when he visits here, he cannot believe how good we live here. He had no idea that our founding principles of commerce and competition were so absolutely relevant to our economy until he saw it…
View original post 725 more words
If we had to choose one of the Presidential Candidates, who would the actors choose as their director?
Actors want their show to run smoothly? Yes or No? ALWAYS YES. DUH.
Now, if we could choose any Presidential Candidate, President or Ex-President as an example of the best director of a show called America, we would all choose Ronnie Reagan. Hands down, two-thumbs up, right?
Did you know that Ronald Reagan was an actor raised as a liberal Democrat? Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was his inspiration for continuing to get involved in politics throughout his life despite his day job of being an actor. He was also a director though. Not of any shows that I know of, but as the President of his class in college and then as the President of the Screen Actors Guild he showed he had the wherewithal to be a man of many talents. He even took on a business role when he held a Sunday show traveling around informing people about GE products and speaking with executives of other companies in regards to business in America. However, eventually Democrats persecuted him for the conservative views he was inspired by such as anti-communism, fiscal responsibility and anti-big government. So he was forced to change his affiliation to the Republican Party. Remember that last part, because it’s pretty important.
Well, we can’t go back to the 80’s as bad as we want another chance to wear parachute pants, we just can’t. So given our choices today, why are celebrities and actors seeming to side with someone who ironically may not be their actual first choice if they had to decide who would run their show if it were an actual show? Still with me? Why would they be drawn to say they are inspired by someone and so therefore say it is a good idea for all of America to be inspired by them as well? Why would they do that? Let me explain.
While actors tend to be very popular they are not “cliquey.” They are popular and they do what is popular but tend to remain fairly independent. They have a lot of friends, but not too many “best” friends if you know what I mean.
And if there is one thing that is true about all actors, it is that they love to be in the limelight. They can’t help it. It’s in their DNA and what gives them the ability to be actors. Like a moth to a flame, etc. etc. This is what draws them to President Obama. He offers them the limelight, not necessarily popularity, but that doesn’t really matter to them. Consequences, smonchemences. Let me explain, further. If Obama invites you to the White House for dinner, nothing else matters. Fans opinions have nothing over being a part of something exclusive. Actors learn early on that fans opinions are not of their control anyway. They say what is popular, and their fans do it. Not the other way around.
So how do I know so much about the psychology of actors? “No comment” as they say in Hollywood when there is something people actually want them to say. Let’s just say I spent a lot of time in the world of theatre/radio/television and film in my younger days. My main job was on stage but I dabbled in the world of stage crew too. And I have to say I definitely preferred the backstage crew. Being in the back was like being in reality. We were building; running things, making sure the show went perfectly. On stage you just had to learn your lines and take direction well while constantly staying “in character”. Actually, you didn’t even have to get the lines right until absolutely necessary. Procrastination was an assumed natural handicap.
The one thing that I know we all wanted though, was whether you were an actor or on stage crew or light crew or costume crew, prop crew, or on whatever crew, you wanted the show to run well and the only way to do that was having an excellent director. The director knows how to do everything. He/she knows how to act and direct. He/she makes sure the house crew markets the show immensely and that the tickets are sold and not given away. They’re in charge of the budget of the show. They are in charge of what the costumes and the set will eventually be designed like. He/she knows how to build stuff and has to know how to show others how to build stuff. He/she needs to know the difference between stage left and stage right. He/she needs to be able to tell the actors when they are about to fall off the stage.
I know everyone would like to think of their president as someone they would also like to be friends with. Now, I would like to be friends with my director too, but at the same time I know he is going to give me criticism when I need it and can fire my ass at any moment. And I hope to God he would have the balls to fire anyone who sucked, because it would make the show suck. Not even a tiny little bit of crap can be tolerated in Broadway, so why would we tolerate that in the big show we call America?
Ronald Reagan was a great actor and a great director, so to speak, diplomat and humanitarian. He could do it all, could he not? We want him back so bad it hurts! We all want him back. If Ronnie could come back through Theresa Caputo from time to time we would vote for her. But we can’t. So here’s the thing. Republicans worship President Ronald Reagan for a reason. They identify with him. In other words they want to be like him and represent him proudly. More to the point, we want our leaders to be like him. Romney is not Reagan, but he represents and is a part of a whole team that is all about what Reagan believed in; running the show well.
Now, here’s the moment of truth. Who would be the better director if we were putting on a show called America? Would you hire President Obama or Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to direct your show? I have to say, just going by the man’s experience, I would definitely cast Obama in the show, because he’s a great actor, but I don’t know if he even knows what a fresnel is or what it does. Therefore, I couldn’t even count on him to approve a good lighting design. However, since Mitt Romney has directed such things in the past like oh, THE OLYMPICS; one of the biggest shows in the world, I’d have to say he’d get the job. For some reason I just get the feeling President Obama wakes up every day and says “Macbeth” before his first sip of coffee.
Well, Lacee, you say. This is not a Broadway show this is reality. This is a reality show, baby. Real people don’t run on scripts.
And to that I retort: I think it is a play and we do run on scripts that we write out for ourselves every day. We depend on our leaders and caretakers to keep our lives going in the right direction hence the very real need for someone to be helping with all that, a director. A real President of the United States is a job that is one that most certainly is if not more than equivalent to a title of Director. Besides reality shows aren’t really reality either, are they? I mean really. I’m just sayin’.
I think it’s about time someone from the Republican campaign just took the time to lay it all out there. Just tell the people what is up with what Republicans believe. I’m not Karl Rove or anything, but I think it ought to come from Mitt Romney himself and P.D.Q. Here’s what I would say if I were him.
Hello, my name is Mitt, and I’m a rich man. I’m standing before you and I admit it. Yes, my name is Mitt and I AM a rich man. I’ll own it.
There is certainly a lot of discussion out there about being rich or poor. That people who are rich will always be rich and that poor people will always be poor. Rich people do nothing for anybody but themselves and poor people can do nothing for themselves. Is that how you see it? Funny, I always thought America was about poor people who thought they could be rich if they really wanted to be and then did. America is where we break through those glass ceilings and say nothing is always the way it is.
Let me tell you about two sons I know. They both worked for Dell Computers way back before Dell was DELL. One man’s father was a middle to upper income earner, a CFO, while the other’s father came from Mexico as a migrant worker picking watermelons. One day these sons tell their fathers to invest in Dell because they see customized computers as the future. So the dads do this, each father taking what they think they can spend on the investment. Now you might imagine the migrant worker invested less than the wealthier CFO, but we’ll never know for sure. He was unable to speak much English and had no idea what a Dell computer was until his son started working there. Some years later, the CFO father grew “un-enchanted” with the computer company and decided to cash out of his slow if not motionless investment. The migrant worker dad on the other hand, out of love and respect for his son, faithfully kept what little money he had in Dell despite his poor means. He just worked harder to make ends meet. A couple years later, Dell Computers turned the whole technology market on its head. Stock price for this company skyrocketed and then split… then split again. The migrant watermelon picker was now a multi-millionaire and the CFO dad was just as moderately wealthy as he always was. In America, both had equal opportunity to be extremely wealthy despite their backgrounds. There was no insider trading- just faith in a good business.
In America, poor people can become rich people and rich people can become poor people. There is no guarantee; there is only the right of pursuit. Now if you take the right of pursuit away, by telling people there is no chance so why pursuit…all you do is guarantee that most people will try less to succeed and try less to pursuit great things. I pursued great things, became rich and now that allows me to help you, uninhibited by my background. I heard a citizen say the other day, to a reporter, “Well Mitt is rich. Why would he want to bother with such a hard job as the President?” And the answer to that is because I can. And I can do this without having to be tempted by corruption. No one could ever pay me enough to do harm to my country. There isn’t one thing I need or want in my life more than the opportunity to save this country from ruin.
There are people in charge right now that clearly have no idea what they are doing. The polls show we agree we are not heading in the right direction. I understand the Obama Administration’s pride and why they are so frustrated by this failure. They had a revolutionary plan. Unfortunately, it’s not a working plan. It never was. It has failed because they don’t want to admit when they are wrong and they don’t want help. Have you ever seen this show called Kitchen Nightmare’s with a chef by the name of Gordon Ramsey? This guy comes in and tells the restaurant owners either that their kitchen is filthy, they are spending too much money, or too little money on good produce, their behavior towards their employees and customers need to change, the food sucks or all of the above. In each case the restaurant is going bankrupt, the owners are in debt up to their ears, they’re about to lose their home because that’s tied to the restaurant too, but still… because they had such great plans for the restaurant and it was their “dream” they don’t want to listen. They get angry. They get violent. They literally hate this guy Ramsey because they think he’s all high and mighty. They think he couldn’t possibly understand where they are coming from, the whole bit. He comes in, gives them all these alternative options. He makes changes to the menu and the decor. Overnight he makes real physical changes and helps change their attitudes whether they will admit it will work or not and then faithfully waits to see what happens. Suddenly everyone likes the food and surprise, the business grows. The families end up naming their children after Gordon and all live happily ever after. Now Gordon Ramsey isn’t an American citizen, so he can’t be nominated for President, so don’t even try it! Now here’s the thing. He goes back six months later to check on them and those owners who decided to be stubborn and go back to their old way and not listen to the expert went under. Those who refused to try and trust someone they thought was “out of touch” with them, lost out big time. Never to be recovered.
I don’t want that to be America. I am rich because I’m good at business and we need to change the way we do business in America. Forgive me for saying this but the majority of America’s problems right now are about money. We need the poor and the rich working together in America like we used to. Now those who have the money are literally unable to use it. People cannot get the loans they need. Workers cannot get paid. The way America used to do business is no longer possible because of the way the current administration chooses to run it. I’ll say it again. They don’t know what they are doing. People don’t want to do business with us anymore, in other words, people are going to stop coming to our restaurant if we don’t get it functioning as a modern, fresh and comfortable place to be.
They are telling you that by doing things right, what the Republicans think is right, that it will put hard working minorities “back in chains.” There is no skin color of the Republican Party. Anyone who says there is, is backwards. They want you to look backwards too. Doing it over and over and over again is intolerable. The hatemongering has got to stop! If you took us all and stuck us in a blender we’d be a very nice shade of brown. Our expertise, our experience, our love for our country and the great things about it has no class status. “Wise men profit more by fools, than fools by wise men; for wise men avoid the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the good examples of wise men.” – CATO THE ELDER, c. 200 B.C. If you don’t want to work with rich people you’re missing out. If you don’t want to work with poor people, you’re missing out. Great educations come from working with both. That is why America has for centuries been so ahead of the curve. Our tolerance of each other, our abilities to make our differences work for us, make us smarter.
As people have actually tried to disrupt the harmony and our strides with civil rights, making us stop to question whether we should continue to keep working together, our country has become stagnate and numb. But here’s the trick. It’s only on the surface. The real truth about this whole campaign thing is that under all this media coverage of class warfare and anger, we are real people. We are a real country. We don’t hate each other. We’re angry because we feel we can’t make a difference in our financial status or communities. Opportunity has literally been snatched from our grasp. Because of fear, doors- as in opportunity, as well as the real doors to our homes and businesses… like our favorite restaurants are literally closing every day.
Speaking of closing doors. There is something I would really like to stop and that’s the bold face lies being told by those working for the Democratic Party to confuse you about the Republican policy. Republicans don’t hate gay people and we don’t have an ongoing war against women. We will not make it our focus to repeal gay marriage. Nor will we make it our focus to repeal Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, in case you were curious, none of our policies make the environment more polluted or the globe warmer either.
If that’s what you are afraid of, then you aren’t living in the real world. That’s where the Republicans and I live. I’m going to be real honest with you right now. So listen up. Our focus is saving the economy right now. Without an economy, we can’t do jack. That’s just the way it is. All the smart cars and healthcare in the world won’t save us if our economy collapses. This is what Republicans stand for right now. We will fix this problem carefully and methodically. To do this, despite popular belief, Republicans will not throw Granny off a cliff. I don’t even know how those actors got that wheelchair with granny up there. No, seriously. In fact, we only plan to cut spending on Medicaid by 3% compared to what Obama wants to spend. That’s hardly reducing grandma to eating cat food. In fact, once we get rid of Obamacare we can put the 716 billion Obama’s plan steals from seniors back in the Medicare pot. Another fact is that if we continue with Obama’s healthcare plan, Medicare for seniors will be completely insolvent in 12 years.
The model we are looking at for offering everyone a healthcare choice is doing better in use than we ever anticipated. It has cost 43% less than what we thought it would cost to implement and young people get to choose whether they want Medicare run by the government or get the equivalent of that cost to use towards a private insurance of their choice. This will drive the cost down with the good old’ American way. Competition. Competition means choice for everyone. Competition, in case you were wondering, isn’t the same as fighting each other.
If we can hold onto our thoughtless blurts of disgust and spontaneous angry reactions to the little stuff for just a while, we find we aren’t that upset after all. When we don’t waste the time responding to every word each other say with anger, we listen to the other guy a little more and understand where they are coming from a little bit better. Americans don’t ask each other whether we are rich or poor when we are fighting for our country. It’s not our style. We may not agree, but a compromise can surely be explored a lot easier on that safer frontier.
We built this country together. It seems like we haven’t built anything in a long time. That’s what it feels like. I know we can build a great future together. Would you rather let the government say they’ll come up with something to help you out and you don’t need to worry about what it is or what it costs? Or would you rather be involved by learning from and working with your countrymen to build something you believe in? I know, in fact I will guarantee you, as a successful business man who honestly cares about each and every one of you, if we all work harder, if we all work harder on working together we’ll all be a lot richer.
Stand with me. Support me and the other Republicans in your state. Don’t let them close more doors on opportunity. Let’s make more doors of opportunity! Thank you and God Bless America.
Okay, so I’m not as good as Mitt would be. I’m just sayin’.
There may be something wrong with having a tendency to see life through certain cartoons, but yah, here I go again. Like many Americans out there concerned with how the next election will turn out, I want to know how exactly the opposition to the Democratic Party will go about their plan of battle. I don’t know about you but I have battle plans constantly rolling around in my head, because well, I’m more than concerned. I’m borderline frantic. I’m on edge. I’m wondering if Mitt Romney and the campaign leaders will actually have the bollocks to take the gloves off and put forth the effort to beat the Democratic Party at its own game. So far, I think they are behind on getting this show on the road, but I can be patient… Okay, no I can’t. Might I relay some of my thoughts on the subject?
Is there anyone on the opposition of the Dems that can think like a liberal? I’m not saying is there a person that thinks this way all the time, just part-time, like on an “on-call” basis? This is very important, because there are certain liberal weaknesses we all enjoy and could be used like a bridge, a corpus callosum if you will, to the casm that spans our right brains and left brains. Weaknesses like our love for movies and cartoons. It’s a welcomed weakness, but a weakness none the less because we tend to let our guard down when we are being entertained.
I heard two different references to the movie industry by conservative analysts in relation to how this campaign should be run. I think they are on the right track. Janine Turner made a comment about how actors in a great movie are super talented and feel bonded like one cohesive team. Dennis Miller referred to how Chris Christie running with Romney would be like Kevin Costner and Sean Connery in The Untouchables. Unstoppable. Bulletproof. That just shows how we are as conservatives seeking and longing for a hero. That’s thinking liberally in a good way. We know realistically that real heroes don’t run for the office of President and Vice President because they’re not stupid enough to walk into that burning building, but we are definitely wishing on a star aren’t we? I think we should prove to the other side that we haven’t lost that sense of wonder. Let’s show them we have a sense of adventure by showing what kind of change America can have when individuals like them imagine what can be built with a little hard work and cooperation. Why not think the whole campaign strategy could be a metaphorical representation of our ideal America and get the attention of a lot more of the folks who tend to think that way. Let me give you an example.
Cartoons are an art form and art was created to speak messages to us without having to actually be interested in the message. Even liberals turn on their right brains for anything that is portrayed as a display of “art”. I think this is why art can be so powerful.
Cartoons have this wonderful way of keeping our attention to the very end because we are being entertained instead of being brow beat by live people who want to get their point across. Even when they are completely demented, the good ones with a moral lesson intertwined, seem to be the most successful cartoons. Why? Because we want to be better people, we just don’t want to be told to be. In my spare time, I like to write children’s books and the best ones are those that teach a lesson without seeming like they are teaching anything. SpongeBob is a perfect example of how good moral behavior can be disguised behind strange behavior and be hugely popular. Now if you’ve never watched SpongeBob, you have no idea what I’m talking about. And if you’ve never watched SpongeBob you definitely have never watched a fairly new cartoon out there called Adventure Time.
Talk about art, Adventure Time’s artistic staff is absolutely stunningly talented. The colors and creativity that goes into each episode is entertainment alone. Then they add original musical pieces that are really quite clever and you have something any one with eyeballs would watch. That is my hope, because Adventure Time isn’t just a great cartoon it implies something very important about what kind of people we should all be, heroes in a world of uncertainty.
The problem with being a hero is that it’s complicated. That’s the main theme. To me that kind of sounds like a story about being American. Hey, this is art. I can interpret it how I want to. We are so powerful as a whole, but as individuals it seems we are losing our grasp of what we really need to do with our lives. Fin and Jake the dog (not his dog) are the heroes of our story who always want to be good and win battles for that which is good. Fin is a thirteen year old young man who metaphorically represents our youthful vision of America and the world. Jake, Fin’s best friend and a super stretchy shape-shifting dog represents the ever-expanding opportunity and freedom available in America that is to be taken advantage of in order to win. Princess Bubblegum, who is this super-genius sweetheart, represents the establishment, what is all-good and worth fighting for. It’s funny because she tends to create bad things by accident (like our government) and needs Fin’s help to get rid of them. One episode she created zombies and had to get Fin to keep it quiet while she worked on a cure or the candy kingdom would destroy itself in panic Essentially he had to make up and partake in what can only be described as a government cover-up while at the same time he righteously fought zombies to keep the unappreciative candy people safe. Tell me you don’t see a common theme here.
If you really observe closely you’ll see several poignant pieces with very American themes. A hero doesn’t mean always killing the foe, but sometimes it does. Sometimes you don’t recognize the foe because they are dressed in poor sad case clothing and pull at your heartstrings. Many times, it says you don’t know who your foe is until the very end no matter what you do. Sometimes there’s a possibility to solve problems with tools and technology and sometimes it takes brute strength to win. Sometimes you have to hold weak people up and sometimes you just have to teach them to turn their weaknesses into strength. Some problems are not your problem and you should stay out of it, but if it’s a situation where evil is present, it’s always your problem. Sometimes there are blood sucking dead girls that sneak into your house, but they’re not necessarily evil. Okay, I don’t know what that last one has to do with America, but my point is, this cartoon has some very conservative themes in it that are a joy to absorb. Just don’t tell any liberals you watch Adventure Time. Just like kids if they find out you like it they won’t watch it anymore.I’m just sayin’.
Once something is labeled as something with a moral backbone, you have to fight harder to make people pay attention. Everyone expects too much of individuals with moral messages all the while not even listening. Like Fin, a hero doesn’t always know what to say. Good people aren’t 100% good, but it doesn’t make us hypocrites either. Good people are sometimes violent and loud, because that’s what it takes. Good people plan because they don’t always know how to fix things on the fly. When people call you slow or lazy or unprepared in the meantime, do not quit. Never give up. Never surrender. Never be ashamed of being a methodical planner. Remember that Republicans! It’s such an adventure to be good.
With the new developments and precedents being set by the powers that be in America recently, I’m positive it is time to start hunkering down and becoming more aware of our hero work. A big part of that is making sure we have an America that can actually produce and house heroes. If we let America crash and worse yet go more towards and entitlement society, where we have to depend on the government for our scraps,individuals will become powerless and it will be too late. We are literally going to have to take advantage of all our tools, technology and tenacity to fight against the evil succubus that is in power today. I don’t know if that includes time to watch cartoons, but in light of what I’ve said about it, maybe you can relax a little knowing liberals and those who do not care about politics are probably sitting and watching something that is good for them too.
President Obama’s campaign spent more than $30 million to run TV ads on the subject of Romney being bad for American business for nearly three months even though the allegation that Mr. Romney “shipped jobs to China and Mexico” was called “misleading, unfair and untrue” by the Washington Post fact checker and labeled “bunk” in an editorial. The Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.org said it found no evidence to support the claim that Romney shipped American jobs overseas, but still the commercials and “legal slander” continue.
I would imagine that over the next few months they are going to try and go all out to widen the gulf between those who know how to make/save money and those who do not. They are going to try to paint a picture of business people and rich business people in particular as those who use sneaky tactics to make money. They will portray hard work as something only noble poor people do. They will make poor people feel even more hopeless about their attempts at hard work and saving by telling them that both the rich and the government are miraculous staples in this country that can never be matched or achieved or changed by the common man. They will tell us the only difference between the two is that rich people want to remain rich so they do anything, use any and all hidden resources to keep it that way and that in contrast the government uses its “magic” to help the people. They will tell us the only way to change things is to give the government more of our support not the “mysterious” rich business people.
So how do we counter this Cro-Magnon campaign? We can’t stay on the level and just keep up with the status quo. So far, Obama and the Dems are the status and we the Republicans, we’re the quo. Let’s say no to the quo. I say we need to go over the top imaginative. While they use their cash trying to lie and do those things I mentioned above, the Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers and Dems who give a damn need to spend their money on wowing the hell out of us with a vision of a great future. Show it to us. I don’t care if you have to hire Steven Spielberg himself. We need to out liberal mind the liberals. The only thing liberals like more than dwelling in their own sorrow is being distracted from the pain with something spectacularly inspiring.
Show us how private people and rich businessmen with big imaginations turn the world around. Bring as many of these men and women to the table and relay their potential to as many Americans as possible. Show the world that we will not rely on the government to make the leading strides in technology. Show us how innovators like Burt Rutan and Richard Branson are going to go all “X Prize” on our ass. Show us how we will therefore breathe new life back into innovation, breeding business, more engineers and therefore more wealth. All those bridges and wonderful things we have were built by engineers not the government, President Obama. No, I didn’t build it, but some regular hard-working Americans did. The government may have given its permission to build the bridge, but they didn’t build it or even plan it probably. But you know what? That’s all it can do. Obama doesn’t want anyone to think about the fact that all the government can really do is give you permission to do something or not do something. Do you really want them to do this in all aspects of your life? You don’t even let your mom do that. Do you?
Back to the point. I think if we take the over the top, high energy, high special effect, historical fiction, science fiction-type approach we could really get more of the liberal types to open up their minds a little bit to our cause. That shouldn’t be as hard a trick as what Obama and the Dems have to do. They have to try to convince us that the government can do all that inventing and a bag chips too. Well, they have NASA, I guess. Oh, wait, no. They’re in the process of dismantling that. Hmm. I don’t know how they’re going to show us anything positive in motion for the future. The auto industry is doing just fine on its own, without any help from the government and has been for some time now. So I guess the car companies have already burst the government’s bubble on taking credit for that one too.
What it comes down to is this. Fight negative pseudos with positive pseudos. You can’t fight all Obama’s lies with the cold hard truth necessarily. We saw this when Romney had his “Night at the Apollo” as I like to call it. Even though the NAACP was slightly receptive to Romney’s speech in which he refused to pander it wasn’t exactly something that inspired anyone in the audience to vote for him. What I refuse to do in contrast to many of the commentators I saw who spoke about the speech Romney gave at the NAACP, is imply that the audience members were racist and would not vote for Romney because he doesn’t want to speak “their language”. That’s ridiculous. I think they will if he can inspire them. Remember, many African-Americans who were supporters of Obama are feeling in general, pretty darn used by the Obama campaign.
I think instead of using people or a particular group of people, we need to actually give them something they can use as a constituency to better their cause. If you give them something they need, their support will come. Come to think of it there are a lot of groups that have been used by the Obama campaign. They know they’re being used, they just expected something in return. “Dollar make me holler, honey boo boo.” Sorry, I had to. Find out what they need and use our imagination to actually give something to that effect to them. Anything is better than empty promises. Anything.
Republicans don’t need a miracle. We just need to appeal to liberals’ better, let’s say more idealistic and prosperous nature. Let’s embrace our liberals with tattoos and show them how to be true rebels. Help them surprise the living hell out of employers by showing them how to get skills and education that overshadow how they look. Let’s be realistic. Employers are going to have to get used to working with tattoos just like they had to get used to working with women. We can be extremely distracting, but none the less can be invaluable assets to any team if we can bring the skills. Conservative leaders, surprise the hell out of liberals and other conservatives alike by supporting and appreciating the harmless if not good things about being liberal. In fact I think it would behoove the Mitt Romney campaign to recruit as many tattooed conservatives as they could find and publicize the hell out of them. They do exist! It won’t be an easy task but I think it’s worth it. Tattooed people talk to other tattooed people. That’s just a fact. Now you might say, well why don’t we just get old Mitt up there in the tattoo shop? Why don’t we all get holey faces and ink up our skin? Well, that would just be too contrived wouldn’t it and we don’t want to do that. I’m not getting a tattoo. I think I get more attention without them. Then again, I won’t be as effective at a biker rally as Spike with his Sarah Palin tattoo, will I? Isn’t politics exciting? Isn’t the whole thing a big dirty contrived mess? Absolutely, so we might as well make it worth our while and win the damn thing. Like I said, it’s adventure time!
What I’m about to write may be a little presumptuous. My best friend told me when we were kids that someday my mouth would get me in trouble. Honestly, I don’t really think this is it.
It kind of reminds me of this horrible semester long research paper I had to write in college, a requirement to graduate called the Capstone Paper. You had to pick a social issue you think something should be done about and propose a solution. The thing was, you couldn’t write about any of the red letter subjects like abortion or… abortion. I figure they didn’t want us to waste our time writing about something they knew we just weren’t equipped to talk about much less find answers for at our level of experience. So, I finally got them to let me write about homelessness. Ha! Hey, I like complicated. I thought I had some pretty good points but the guy grading me didn’t exactly see it my way. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why he didn’t like anything I had to say. I had basically written on the same subject in another course and received rave reviews. This guy wanted to give me an “F” like something awful. Needless to say, I lost my Suma Cum Laude status. Finally, I remembered a moment at the beginning of the course when the professor was trying to get to know everyone. Seeing I was a big fan of automobiles he asked me my opinion on buying a new Corvette and I gave him my honest opinion. I told him Corvettes suck and he should buy a Porsche. Well, at the time it was pretty much true. I don’t think he ever smiled at me again after that statement. I learned the hard way that sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut no matter what you think you know or what you think you’ll help by being totally and completely honest. (Hopefully I’m not talking about me at this juncture.) But anyhow, speaking of losing status and people who get kicked to the curb…
Poor Sandra Fluke, just the latest victim of the Democratic National Committee machine. If there was ever a dangerously crazy fraternity on campus it would be the far-left Democrats. Isn’t it just like them to sacrifice a child for their own quest for power? Well, maybe not a child, I meant virgin. No, I meant…umm…hmmm…young woman who looks like a virgin, maybe? The point is this young woman may have totally screwed her future by following these people into what is clearly just a cheap attempt to get the vote of the young and the restless. Wow. Was that worth it? Talk about wham bam thank you ma’am. Her image of a serious individual for representing, women’s health law has probably been seriously damaged. She clearly doesn’t know crap about women’s actual needs. I’m not even sure she knows the definition of need. Georgetown Law? Really?
Kind of like that chick who came on Mr. Sean Hannity’s show in defense of the latest bus victim, Fluke. Right off the bat Tamara Holder rebuts one of Sean’s opening comments with “Well, that’s because I’m a smart liberal, Sean.” Then throughout the interview she went on to say with little finesse whatsoever, that she readily equates entitlement with our constitutional rights. Despite his disappointment, Sean was very polite I have to say. When you know good and well he wished he could throw that football right at her head.
Another guest on Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s Factor proceeded to say how all of the conservative Republicans were spouting language that indicated a “war on women”. She emphasized “all of them” several times. But when Mr. O’Reilly asked her to give just one example, she sat there stunned, quiet. Then he gave her an easier question. “Give me one example of Romney saying something against women.” Again, cricket sounds. She finally was able to utter something to the effect that she liked Romney …but that he never has spoken out against the Republicans [and their apparent war on women]. Don’t they know they are going to be asked to back up their statements? Don’t they know they look absolutely ridiculous when they sit there with their mouths wide open aggrandized by their flanking Farrah Fosset hair? If there is a war on women, these women are traitors to our cause. They all by themselves make us look like the weaker sex.
No disrespect to Rosie and Ms. Houston, but what on earth were you girls smoking before you had your little televised tea party? Why would you go out there and say that there is a war on women “in this day and age”? You mean in the day and age where women are freely allowed to live whatever lifestyle as a woman they choose? Seriously, you’re going to take up arms and say there is a war on women because you think contraception is too expensive? Did I miss something?
What about a war on women because fertility drugs are too expensive? Fertility treatments or medications to help women get pregnant (whether they need them or not) aren’t covered at all by insurance. This is because fertility is viewed as a luxury item, not any kind of medical necessity. Well, I’m here to say that as a woman, I think having babies means just as much to me as not having them. Besides, these “fertility” drugs are a medical necessity in many cases, just as the contraceptives are being argued to be. Wouldn’t you think that should be included on this discussion of women’s health being neglected and further for that matter, shouldn’t we really discuss who is at the bottom of not providing shall we say a more well-rounded form of women’s healthcare?
If the Republican Party advisors (huh-hum, Karl) had any sense whatsoever, they would use this blatant misuse of a college kid to their advantage. This is a dodge ball you can catch! Come on, if some people are really going to use women’s health as a campaign strategy how about doing something that actually concerns women’s health. And if you really want to earn more than just the votes of women and earn the hearts of women, you should use the power of the Republican Party to actually do something to change the way we truly look at women’s health so that it benefits us when it is appropriate for us. This is one way they can do that.
Republicans should turn the issue of women’s health right back on these entitlement policy pushing people by pointing out that the availability of contraception and abortion to women, especially young ones is not where the government and insurance companies are lacking service. There is a gap in women’s healthcare and there does seem to be some pretty anti-woman sentiment going on behind it, but it’s not coming from conservative Republicans. It comes from ultra-feminist who want an absolute equivocation between the sexes no matter what the cost. Like I said, I’m not a genius but, I’m guessing they don’t belong to the conservative Republican Party.
When I started hearing all this Pseudos about women’s health needs not being met because they were not going to be provided contraception drugs through their church-based employer or school, I thought what a ridiculous waste of media attention. Look, I’m not smart enough to get into Georgetown Law but I know that is like the last thing women are really in a pickle about when it comes to their health, specifically. It’s especially so when you can go and get those things at alternative locations for little to no cost, insurance or no. Do they want it delivered to their dorm or something …with a cookie no less?
If those who are trying to promote change in America’s healthcare in general were so interested in the availability of excellent women’s healthcare, why do they no longer equate good health with fertility? For thousands of years the epitome of a healthy woman was a fertile woman. Somehow that’s all changed. Specifically in business, specifically in insurance companies and I doubt very sincerely that it has anything to do with cost/profit margin.
Here’s an example. If you have a complicated pregnancy, that’s one thing, but in general, if you need some help having a baby with fertility drugs, or if you want to have any extra monitoring of a healthy baby during pregnancy, it is absolutely not covered by any health insurance of any brand. It seems the policy is this way because their stand is that if you want children, that is a luxury item and therefore you should have to pay for them. What they fail to realize is by this policy, they are neglecting many young women that need drugs that are considered “fertility drugs” even though they are to treat diseases like endometriosis. The goal is to not have to get pregnant actually, even though the only said “cure” for endometriosis is pregnancy. They’re just trying to keep the cancerous-like endometrial tissue at bay until they are someday ready to have surgery or get pregnant.
There is hardly anyone who doesn’t know someone who is suffering or has suffered from endometriosis. Scientists don’t know if this has always been prevalent among women, but they all concur this is a very widespread and an increasingly more serious disease among women. Not to put too fine a point on this but, this is a real, major health issue among women, especially college age women, and I bet something they would be very interested in their political representatives getting involved in.
Many women like me at that age just want to finish college, but between the pain, the surgeries and lack of coverage it is almost impossible. However, if women do not do something to remove the endometriosis at an earlier stage, it in many cases can cause serious problems and at the very least lead to very low chances of pregnancy later on in life.
At any rate, many college age women with this very common disease are faced with few choices. They can pay full price for these extremely expensive drugs in lieu of tuition, food and rent. Or they could drop out of school and go ahead and start a family if they can find a dude ready and willing (and hopefully with a job). Or they can do nothing and let the disease invade. So why is this issue for insurance companies? What’s the big deal? Why won’t they just write in a little sub clause thing-a-majiggy (that’s the word I’ll use to get into Georgetown Law) so that these truly in need women can be covered for these “fertility drugs” when they medically need them?
My theory is that no matter how you make the case, insurance companies will not cover such drugs because in order to do so, they would have to change their definition of fertility in reference to a woman’s health. Suspiciously, they are obviously not interested in changing this policy for the benefit of women or for any other reason. I just wonder. Do you think it is coincidental that insurance companies’ policies and the policies and views of the far left of the liberal Democratic Party are so much inline? They both take non-religious stands on medical issues. They both seem to treat men and women equally as far as what they are entitled to (which brings up a point I will bring up later). And most recently they also both seem to take the stand that contraception for all is a more pertinent issue to women’s health than the actual medical needs and care of women, especially women wanting to have children someday.
I believe this relates directly to the ultra-feminists agenda and directly in opposition to women’s civil rights. I know that is a big statement, but scientifically it is a fact that this current policy of having an all or nothing approach to women’s health in order to protect a hidden agenda of equality or for any reason is harmful to women. I believe they are harming more than they realize.
This in a way seems to be stunting the growth of families who have mothers who attend college. If young women can’t go to college or have to drop out of college they will not have health insurance. Medicare does not cover experts on how to create longevity in fertility. If women continue to wait to have children after college or even after they get their career going, they naturally have a lower chance of conceiving a child. Combine that situation with women who have diseases like endometriosis. If they get pregnant young, but do not go to college they will not have a good income much less health insurance unless they get married. If there is a lot of pain involved and they cannot work or go to college… well, you do the math. You’ve got a lot of non-educated, not working, pregnant women and you also have a lot of educated successful women, but who have no ability to have children. Instead of going towards a future where we have more freedom to do as we choose we are losing a battle to something we cannot control before we even get started. Again why is contraception our biggest problem here? I think this is a distraction; literally something they pulled out of a sack of things to do to harm the Republican Party. The real issue is and has everything to do with wanting to keep conservatives away from the issue of abortion. If they can get conservative Republicans to tuck tail and run just on the issue of conception there’s no way Santorum or anyone else will bring up abortion. I believe someone pulled that because they are scared we are close to figuring something out.
What I’m about to say is not because I think insurance companies will begin to care or will change their “minds” because of what I’m saying. The following has a point in reference to how you get insurance companies to “care” about their business enough to change their policy.
Historically I believe the only effective mediums that ever really change people’s cultural perspective is martyrdom, the media or big business. The first one, martyr- well, those are a little hard to come by these days (in America anyway) and let’s just say they don’t come “on demand”. The second isn’t really a creative medium and shouldn’t be used for political problem solving. Well it shouldn’t be anyway if we’re talking about real news media, real journalists being the source and most specifically when the subject is the insanely delicate issue of abortion. So news/entertainment media, that’s out for convincing us of the truth. That leaves big business. How interesting. What in the world kind of big business could ever change the face of the “thing that appears in a woman after she has sex sometimes” A.K.A. a fetus? If you said insurance companies then yes, you guessed it.
Insurance companies are businesses and they do not speak the language of care. Apparently extreme leftists and feminists or both have been able to communicate with them quite well, but conservatives although a little slow on the uptake, can play that game too. Hey, insurance companies are not politically biased. Good health to them equals good money. If they have good enough reasons to start giving some sort of legal descriptions of the fetus and how the fetus affects a woman’s health, good or bad this would indicate a fetus is not just a benign object. This may mean the fetus would no longer be considered something that can just be operated on or elected to be removed as other benign parts of a woman’s body are. Insurance companies believe it or not, may be the key to saving millions of unwanted babies from elective abortion.
Many women are harmed physically and mentally by abortions, but do not talk about it, much less report it to anyone. There are some very deep seeded reasons why women are so private and protected when it comes to the functions of their bodies. Who can blame us when our whole menstruating lives we’ve been told by our fathers, boyfriends and husbands “I don’t want to know!” It’s definitely complicated and probably never going to change. From the dye in our hair to the corns on our feet, it’s all personal. I hate to equate it with this scenario but it’s kind of like a woman seeking to have plastic surgery and she goes to this guy that a friend of a friend who says can give her a “deal”. You know what happens next. Surprise! You’ve got malboobification and no, there’s no deal on a redo. How likely is she to do anything about it? Sure she may scream at the doctor, but go to the public to warn other women? Not likely.
Unfortunately by the same token women who want to keep their abortion private go to great links to keep it private. Businesses that rely on patients who want abortions for non-medical reasons especially, can count on this silence to run their practice as they please. Is this why Roe v. Wade became the law. We needed abortion to be legal so women could be safer. Wasn’t it so women didn’t have to worry about going to some shady place, devoid of information and any semblance of real medical care/after care? You’re lucky if they remind you to bring a pillow to sit your raw biscuit on afterwards.
Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath to never use their knowledge to harm anyone. The only way abortion is considered ethical and therefore legal is because by current legal statements the fetus remains a “benign” part of a woman’s body. In other words, the fetus is regarded as a part of a woman’s body that is neither harmful nor beneficial to her health wise, so therefore it is medically ethical to remove a fetus if a woman so chooses. If that perspective were to ever change, however… For example if a non-medical, non-political, non-religious entity were to establish a different perspective that a fetus was not benign, the opposition to abortion may not be seen as a religious/moral issue any longer, but a medically ethical issue as well as a financial issue. Let me explain.
If liberal Democrats want abortion to continue to be referred to as a real medical procedure that benefits women then they need to find a way to make it as such; giving a woman any and all information they can possibly comprehend in order for them to make a choice they can live with.
Ironically “Pro-Choice” Dems don’t want this either for several reasons. If you start giving information about abortion a lot of people will stop having abortions. If you show women a sonogram of the fetus a lot more women will elect not to have abortions. But most importantly, and the bottom line will always be this: if ever there is a legal precedent set saying that there are ever different health/based scenarios where an abortion should be legal v. illegal, liberal feminists would lose the argument that a fetus has nothing to do with a woman’s health.
If insurance companies start paying attention to fertility they may have to disclose the harmful effects of having an abortion procedure in reference to future pregnancies and also the common mental side effects attributed to undergoing an abortion. They may also inadvertently establish a precedent that having a fetus inside means more to a woman’s health than previously thought and therefore an insurance company’s bottom line.
There probably will never be a way to change the law to say abortion should only be in cases of medical emergency much less abolishing abortion all together. This may be disappointing to those who do solely base their beliefs against abortion on their religious beliefs, but I say let your heart not be troubled. There is still a way to have some satisfactory success in the real war against women.
So, scientifically speaking…the insurance company asks…does pregnancy actually benefit a woman’s health? So I did a little research. The answer is yes and no, but this is a good thing and I’ll tell you why. (I should have a white board for this.) Okay. Turns out if you have one baby or more than two babies the answer is no, actually. Three or more kids are not beneficial to a woman’s health? Imagine that. Not sure why having one is not so good for your health; other than I can guess there were maybe health and/or financial stresses that were there in the first place. Having three or more children seems to be harder on the body and mind for obvious reasons (with the exception of the breasts being more immune to breast cancer).
Two however, seem to be the magic number. Aside from instinctive good comforting feeling we get from having the chance to pass on our legacy onto offspring, they say two children also add more joy and stress relief to a family than not. More specific to a woman’s physical wellbeing, if a she breastfeeds during her pregnancy those two times, it reduces her chances of breast cancer.
Insurance companies therefore, should consider a policy more friendly to fertility than not. Mr. Rove, you could architect a plan for the Republican Party to help. In my opinion a good policy for them would be to simply offer to cover fertility drugs for women with less than two children. This would cover young women who had endometriosis and those women who medically could not get pregnant up to two children without medical help. It would cover women who were truly interested in fertility drugs because they had health problems not because they wanted to have a million babies at once. In essence once you have two babies you are no longer covered for fertility drugs. This would motivate people on two levels, (financially and health wise) to keep their families smaller. More healthy and smaller families? This should make insurance companies drool… in a good way.
This in my opinion is something the Republicans could really use to get their spirit back. A spirit that has been lost I believe, due to the constant rebuke from those who equate people of religious backgrounds as those who argue outside of reality. Conservatives are tired of being beaten in arguments before they even argue simply because of what liberals say is the basis of all conservative beliefs. Religion is not the basis for all conservative beliefs but for some reason red letter subjects like abortion especially, cannot be discussed at all if those on the right are in the discussion. And those on the right don’t speak at all about these subjects because they are afraid people will think all they want to do is have the country conform to their religious beliefs. This is the damage of pseudos!!!
So let’s not try to fight liberals with emotional pleas. Trust me. They’ve got the bleeding hearts of America emotional arguments and drama in the bag. If we continue to go that route we will surely lose. Speak the language of the insurance company’s and you will find a way to make as much “change” with them as the Dem’s apparently are able to make. You can use the young women’s disappointment in the insurance companies and government just as leftists have. But you will win with the argument that you really understand what young women are going through regardless of their religion or personal lifestyle. Women deserve more than to be told they need contraceptives to live healthy lives and you realize that they need security for their future. Whether that means contraceptives today or a family tomorrow, they need to know or maybe they do know that there may be nothing left for them as far as Medicare and social security by the time they need it. This may be why they are going towards a more “entitlement” society as they try to get all the free shit they can while they can. which is why they may vote for someone like Obama. Then point out though, that voting for Obama probably won’t really lead to any free entitlements and that it will actually only make everything (free shit included) harder and harder to get if not disappear altogether. In fact, voting for someone who insists on encouraging an entitlement society will only cause the quality of women’s healthcare to get worse.