ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[JickyJuly]

It was not a comparison between those. It was a comparison between taxpayer funding based on choices.

Given the seriousness of rape, your comparison remark was disgusting and inappropriate.

It's also a DELUSIONAL comparison since, after said rapist goes to prison (probably after assaulting a few more women because most don't come forward or have trouble proving that an assault occurred), a pretty large amount of tax payer money will pay for his life including any healthcare he requires. So, once again, the predator gets better treatment than the victim.

Here are the statistics for inmate costs for tax payers in Michigan. http://www.vera.org/files/price-of-pris ... -sheet.pdf

Even from a financial standpoint, it certainly would make more sense to argue about how to slow crime than whether a victim should be helped financially, not helped financially or forced to carry a child she didn't consent to making.

 

[jackie_O]

Taxpayers foot the bill for rape kits done in the ER. By your logic, that should stop, too, right? :roll:

The rape kits in my area aren't taxpayer funded.

Back reading...

:shock: Who the fuck pays for them?

 

[JoleneBrody]

I've avoided this thread like the plague but I just have to say something.
If there is free counseling and medical exams for rape victims provided by taxpayers then why shouldn't there be free abortions?
It's all part of the rape aftermath. The only difference is exactly what that aftermath entails. Many people pay for their own medical (mental and physical) after care but if they wanted to they could find many programs funded by state and federal dollars.

The only difference here is a fetus and whether or not you have a personal opposition to it. If you have a personal opposition to free medical and mental assistance to victims of of violent and sexual crimes then you are not someone I want anywhere near me!

 

[Nordling]

Taxpayers foot the bill for rape kits done in the ER. By your logic, that should stop, too, right? :roll:

The rape kits in my area aren't taxpayer funded.

Back reading...

:shock: Who the fuck pays for them?

lol At least at one time... In Wasilla, Alaska, the victim had to pay for them. And this was while Sarah Palin was mayor, although she denies that she supported it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

 

[Bocefish]

Team Ladyparts FTW, that had me laughing. :lol:

I'm fairly certain, the EC pill is included with rape kits. I say that because I vaguely remember reading some unscrupulous women were falsely claiming rape just to get the pill and pregnancy test for free.

As far as paying $54 for one little morning after pill in the case of non-rape, considering what it does, I'd say that's a deal. It's less than one full tank of gas for many people & way less than a carton of cigs. I could go on, but wouldn't consider that prohibitively expensive if not covered by insurance.

 

[jackie_O]

Taxpayers foot the bill for rape kits done in the ER. By your logic, that should stop, too, right? :roll:

The rape kits in my area aren't taxpayer funded.

Back reading...

:shock: Who the fuck pays for them?

lol At least at one time... In Wasilla, Alaska, the victim had to pay for them. And this was while Sarah Palin was mayor, although she denies that she supported it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

I just don't even... :angry4:

By even the most conservative estimate, they gained over a quarter of a million dollars charging rape victims to gather evidence against their perpetrator. This hurts my heart something awful.

Holy fucking fuck. I used to be a rape victim advocate. It was my "job" (I volunteered, so not quite job) to go with a victim to have their rape kits done, talk to them, then give them info on free counseling and such. It was a hard job. Around here, the ambulance to the emergency room is free, the rape kit is free, they get a free pair of clothes to change into when they leave (since the rape kit will probably take theirs), and if its is a kid (that's right, I saw a few in my time) they also got a free stuffed toy, there was a free set of medicine to take to prevent certain STDs and pregnancy, and later free std testing, and free counseling.

Even if you don't agree that a victim should get all of that (and you should, I certainly do), how can you POSSIBLY think that a victim should have to PAY THEM TO GATHER FUCKING EVIDENCE. What the flying fuck?

 

[MrRodry]

With no "wall of people shouting USA!" to hide behind Mittens choose to ignore questions about Mourdock, rapes and God.

Mitt Romney Refuses To Answer Questions About Richard Mourdock At Campaign Stop In Cincinnati
by Amanda Terkel

Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters' questions on Thursday about his support for Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who has become the latest Republican to find himself in hot water over comments about rape and abortion.

Romney and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) stopped by a Cincinnati diner on Thursday morning. Bloomberg's Lisa Lerer and Reuters' Sam Youngman noted that when they attempted to ask the GOP presidential nominee about Mourdock, he repeatedly ignored their questions. Specifically, Romney avoided answering whether he wanted the ad pulled and if he would disavow Murdock's rape comments.

During Tuesday's Indiana Senate debate, Mourdock explained his belief that women should not have access to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, stating, "I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Romney has endorsed Mourdock, and his campaign cut an ad on Mourdock's behalf that also began running in Indiana on Tuesday. Romney's campaign has said the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with Mourdock's comments, but has not withdrawn the endorsement or asked that the ad stop running.

Democrats quickly pounced on Mourdock's comments, attempting to tie him to both Romney and other candidates. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign emailed its female supporters, pointing out, "Mitt Romney has made only one ad endorsing a U.S. Senate candidate in this election: Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock."

Nearly every Republican Senate candidate in a close contest contacted by The Huffington Post on Wednesday distanced themselves from Mourdock's remark.

It is the second time a GOP Senate candidate has made controversial comments about rape and abortion. In August, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) argued that women who are victims of "legitimate rape" are physically unable to become pregnant.

According to HuffPost Pollster's average of polls in the Indiana Senate race, Mourdock currently has a 4.9 percentage point lead over his competitor, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.).

Sabrina Siddiqui contributed reporting to this article.

This post has been updated to clarify which questions Romney ignored in Cincinnati.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 16236.html

 

[Jupiter551]

As far as paying $54 for one little morning after pill in the case of non-rape, considering what it does, I'd say that's a deal. It's less than one full tank of gas for many people & way less than a carton of cigs. I could go on, but wouldn't consider that prohibitively expensive if not covered by insurance.

My god, the government pays so much to subsidise all sorts of things including all sorts of medications - republicans want to stop late term abortion, and bitch about single mothers on welfare, how about not charging a woman $54 for having an accident, or possibly even not wanting to advertise the fact she just got raped. A choice whether to have a child should be a choice based on a person's needs, desires and current situation in life - NOT whether they have $54 or not.

And you ARE advocating charging rape victims btw, because I'm sure you know that many victims are too traumatized (certainly the day after) to actually tell anyone they were raped. Or are you suggesting they can have a free pill if they front up within 36 hours and declare they were raped? Is that their responsibility as victims?

I'm sure I've heard Romney and his cronies talk about banning that pill for non-rape victims btw, and you're a fool or a liar if you honestly believe he wouldn't rather ban all abortion for rape victims too. He just knows he'd never get away with saying that and getting elected.

 

[Bocefish]

lol At least at one time... In Wasilla, Alaska, the victim had to pay for them. And this was while Sarah Palin was mayor, although she denies that she supported it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

:naughty:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/mccain ... rape-kits/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/

The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee.

#72: Palin required rape victims to pay for their own rape kits.
No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits.

This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it.

First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina.

Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor.

Third, what the Cop in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.

HOWEVER:

Bob Owens (Confederate Yankee) has done more investigation on this and learned some new things:

There is no record anywhere that anyone was ever actually charged for a rape kit.

However, the hospital might have billed a patient, just as they would bill the patient for an MRI if the attack included a head injury.

If anyone were charged, the Alaska Victims Compensation Board would have reimbursed them. CY quotes an email that says:

Rape kits and other medical expenses of this type would be paid by the VCCB, 100% guaranteed. The City of Wasilla could have technically ‘charged’ the victim but even if they did, the VCCB would have paid the bill in full. I still know a few of the Board members and the supervisor and I can tell you that they are very liberal with the way that they pay the victims bills. http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/200 ... rape-kits/

 

[morment]

My point was that it doesn't matter wtf Mourdock thinks about rape because the morning after pill is available and always will be. How is that an ignorant viewpoint?

You really think that if the politicians like Mourdock, Akin, Ryan and Walsh get what they want and outlaw abortions they'll conveniently ignore/forget about a pill that does the exact same thing as one?

Those same people are arguing that birth control pills should be illegal because of the method by which they prevent a pregnancy.

 

[Bocefish]

A choice whether to have a child should be a choice based on a person's needs, desires and current situation in life - NOT whether they have $54 or not.

And you ARE advocating charging rape victims btw, because I'm sure you know that many victims are too traumatized (certainly the day after) to actually tell anyone they were raped. Or are you suggesting they can have a free pill if they front up within 36 hours and declare they were raped? Is that their responsibility as victims?

Now you're just sounding like a drama queen.

And I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to tell me I'm advocating charging rape victims because you're full of shit trying that and you know it.

 

[Nordling]

Boce, :lol: Don't wag your finger at me...it makes YOU look like a drama queen.

Your FIRST link is where you should have stopped. Factcheck is probably the most credible of your links:

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the pervasive rumor that Sarah Palin, when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, made women pay for their own forensic testing when reporting a rape. The verdict: This policy was enforced for at least some reported rapes in Wasilla, and in 2000, complaints about rape kit charges in Wasilla and other rural areas drove then-Gov. Tony Knowles to pass legislation requiring police departments to pay for the testing. The Wasilla police chief opposed the new state law and defended the practice, saying that it avoided burdening taxpayers with the cost of testing. As for Palin’s role in the whole thing, it was unclear whether she ever supported the practice.

Well, yeah, maybe she didn't . . . even though she was mayor and the police chief worked for her. Wasilla is a rather small town, so if she didn't know...why didn't she know? And you want the President of the US to know every time someone in the State Department takes a piss? (hyperbole)

 

[Bocefish]

My point was that it doesn't matter wtf Mourdock thinks about rape because the morning after pill is available and always will be. How is that an ignorant viewpoint?

You really think that if the politicians like Mourdock, Akin, Ryan and Walsh get what they want and outlaw abortions they'll conveniently ignore/forget about a pill that does the exact same thing as one?

Those same people are arguing that birth control pills should be illegal because of the method by which they prevent a pregnancy.

Then don't vote for them. I'm not advocating their beliefs but I'm also not being paranoid that just because Romney gets elected that Roe V Wade will get overturned. They can argue all they want about the BC & EC pill too, but it won't change it from being available.

 

[Jupiter551]

A choice whether to have a child should be a choice based on a person's needs, desires and current situation in life - NOT whether they have $54 or not.

And you ARE advocating charging rape victims btw, because I'm sure you know that many victims are too traumatized (certainly the day after) to actually tell anyone they were raped. Or are you suggesting they can have a free pill if they front up within 36 hours and declare they were raped? Is that their responsibility as victims?

Now you're just sounding like a dram queen.

And I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to tell me I'm advocating charging rape victims because you're full of shit trying that and you know it.

If you're advocating charging a woman $54 to get a morning after pill you are by default advocating charging rape victims. You can't have it both ways.

You'd think conservatives, who want to have a leaner welfare system etc and seem obsessed with money and budgets, could figure out that subsidising a pill now might just lead to not having to pay for orphanages, welfare etc later. That's called planning ahead. Same with medical care - if you make it free while things are preventative it costs a lot LESS later. Same with education - you subsidise it because a) intellectual capital is good for the country in the longterm and b) over a lifetime the average university graduate pays about half a million dollars more tax than a non graduate - it's an investment.

 

[Nordling]

It's not just about Roe v Wade being overturned. It's about what's already happening in many states... new laws that make it more and more difficult for a woman to MAKE that choice, making it nearly impossible for a woman to get a legal abortion... and courts saying that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell birth control pills to women because of their "moral conscience."

With a Romney Presidency, we will see more fascists on the supreme court...making more and more theocratic decisions.

 

[Bocefish]

Boce, :lol: Don't wag your finger at me...it makes YOU look like a drama queen.

Your FIRST link is where you should have stopped. Factcheck is probably the most credible of your links:

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the pervasive rumor that Sarah Palin, when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, made women pay for their own forensic testing when reporting a rape. The verdict: This policy was enforced for at least some reported rapes in Wasilla, and in 2000, complaints about rape kit charges in Wasilla and other rural areas drove then-Gov. Tony Knowles to pass legislation requiring police departments to pay for the testing. The Wasilla police chief opposed the new state law and defended the practice, saying that it avoided burdening taxpayers with the cost of testing. As for Palin’s role in the whole thing, it was unclear whether she ever supported the practice.

Well, yeah, maybe she didn't . . . even though she was mayor and the police chief worked for her. Wasilla is a rather small town, so if she didn't know...why didn't she know? And you want the President of the US to know every time someone in the State Department takes a piss? (hyperbole)

I know exactly how big Wasilla is, been there many times.

Just because you don't like what the other links I provided state doesn't mean it's not true.

Even the link you provided has an official statement:

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

"Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear," she said. "To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."

 

[morment]

Then don't vote for them. I'm not advocating their beliefs but I'm also not being paranoid that just because Romney gets elected that Roe V Wade will get overturned. They can argue all they want about the BC & EC pill too, but it won't change it from being available.

Romney is on the record as saying he would support the overturning of Roe V Wade, he's also said that he would sign any and all anti-abortion legislation that crossed his desk if he were elected, why is being concerned about that paranoia?

 

[Bocefish]

It's not just about Roe v Wade being overturned. It's about what's already happening in many states... new laws that make it more and more difficult for a woman to MAKE that choice, making it nearly impossible for a woman to get a legal abortion... and courts saying that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell birth control pills to women because of their "moral conscience."

Those are state issues, and rightly so in my opinion.

 

[Bocefish]

Then don't vote for them. I'm not advocating their beliefs but I'm also not being paranoid that just because Romney gets elected that Roe V Wade will get overturned. They can argue all they want about the BC & EC pill too, but it won't change it from being available.

Romney is on the record as saying he would support the overturning of Roe V Wade, he's also said that he would sign any and all anti-abortion legislation that crossed his desk if he were elected, why is being concerned about that paranoia?

I haven't seen or heard anything about him being on record saying that. Proof?

 

[morment]

I haven't seen or heard anything about him being on record saying that. Proof?

Here's one, he said his "preference"
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... rt-reverse

I would post more, but it's raining and my internet is starting to mess up.

 

[Jupiter551]

Then don't vote for them. I'm not advocating their beliefs but I'm also not being paranoid that just because Romney gets elected that Roe V Wade will get overturned. They can argue all they want about the BC & EC pill too, but it won't change it from being available.

Romney is on the record as saying he would support the overturning of Roe V Wade, he's also said that he would sign any and all anti-abortion legislation that crossed his desk if he were elected, why is being concerned about that paranoia?

I haven't seen or heard anything about him being on record saying that. Proof?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...s-to-reassure-socially-conservative-audience/

“The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year can’t be squared with the good heart of America,” he said. “And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade.”

 

[Nordling]

Yes, I hear references to Romney's anti women stuff every day...and it's a huge example of his constant flip flopping. When he was governor of MA, he was "pro choice." He even had a tender story about his mother regarding abortion.

 

[Jupiter551]

Yes, I hear references to Romney's anti women stuff every day...and it's a huge example of his constant flip flopping. When he was governor of MA, he was "pro choice." He even had a tender story about his mother regarding abortion.

Lol yeah he was pro-gay rights too, when he needed the gay vote. Another issue he had a poignant change of heart about after he got elected, going out of his way to invoke old, weird laws to stop gay couples getting married in his state, in contravention of court rulings.

 

[morment]

Here's a video of him saying it:

 

[Bocefish]

I haven't seen or heard anything about him being on record saying that. Proof?

Here's one, he said his "preference"
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... rt-reverse

I would post more, but it's raining and my internet is starting to mess up.

I've said many times that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion issues should be left to the individual states. The federal government has no business entering into it in my opinion. I've also stated many times that I'm pro-choice.

 

[morment]

I've said many times that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion issues should be left to the individual states. The federal government has no business entering into it in my opinion. I've also stated many times that I'm pro-choice.

That's completely beside the point, you asked for proof that Romney is against Roe V Wade, that's proof. I don't give a shit what your personal take on it is.

 

[Bocefish]

Yes, I hear references to Romney's anti women stuff every day

Last poll I saw dated today had both candidates tied at 47% among women voters nationally.

 

[Jupiter551]

isn't "turning responsibility over to states" another way of just causing abortion to be outlawed in some places? Or is that fair - that a woman HAS to have a child because she lives in one state and not another? Why should that be a state's decision? It should be a fucking person's decision.

 

[jackie_O]

Yes, I hear references to Romney's anti women stuff every day

Last poll I saw dated today had both candidates tied at 47% among women voters nationally.

:/ And your point is?

 

[Bocefish]

I've said many times that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion issues should be left to the individual states. The federal government has no business entering into it in my opinion. I've also stated many times that I'm pro-choice.

That's completely beside the point, you asked for proof that Romney is against Roe V Wade, that's proof. I don't give a shit what your personal take on it is.

That video is from the 2008 election.

This was dated OCT. 9th 2012:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1952780.html

Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

I don't know what he'll do about abortion legislation, he's changed his stance so many times it's ridiculous.