Are you kidding me?

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Are you kidding me?

Postby jman111 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:37 pm

Wisconsin lawmakers clash over proposal to block state health plans from covering abortions
"No taxpayer should ever be forced to have his or her money support an activity that takes a human life, whether by direct or indirect means," said Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

:wtf:

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby Cadfael » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:16 pm

GREAT! So we don't have to pay for the military now! That's a pretty substantial percentage of our taxes. Tax cuts for everybody!

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:44 pm

Cadfael wrote:GREAT! So we don't have to pay for the military now! That's a pretty substantial percentage of our taxes. Tax cuts for everybody!

:clap: !!!

And since Republicans defunded PP thereby increasing unintended pregnancies & hence, abortions, she obviously meant they'll "govern" for free from now on too. Because... it's all about their morals, not political posturing

Zoti Bemba
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby Zoti Bemba » Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:18 pm

Don't forget -- "indirect means" are also immoral. Like, say, denial of medical services, healthy food, pure water, clean air, adequate shelter. How can we tolerate not paying for these things? Every life lost due to bad prenatal care, untreated asthma or exposure, or severely limited by malnutrition or lead poisoning, reflects on our increasingly polarized, uncaring, unjust society!

But of course folks like Heather Weininger don't give a damn about people who are already born. Her deep, deep unshakeable concern for human life starts at conception and ends at birth. Once it's no longer about controlling other women's reproductive choices you're on your own, o you fallen inheritor of the stain of Original Sin.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:23 pm

I was going to say that she's probably mad that no one named a beer after her like Leinenkugel's, but I would've been wrong.

Image

Shorty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:53 pm

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby Shorty » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:10 am

Then I don't want to pay for cancer treatment for State employees who smoke. And I don't want to pay for heart surgery or diabetes care for State employees who have unhealthy diets and lifestyles.

Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7884
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek
Contact:

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby Bwis53 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:26 am

Shorty wrote:Then I don't want to pay for cancer treatment for State employees who smoke. And I don't want to pay for heart surgery or diabetes care for State employees who have unhealthy diets and lifestyles.
Or Dick Cheney's heart...

Zoti Bemba
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby Zoti Bemba » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:08 pm

If a state worker used her taxpayer-supplied wages to pay for an abortion, or for a form of birth control that some fundamentalist Christians somewhere have randomly decided is the moral equivalent of an abortion, then wouldn't that also make the taxpayers indirectly responsible?

We could just deposit all wages earned by women of childbearing age into a trust controlled by the most persnickety of the religiously looney extremists, who could then make sure that not a penny is spent in any manner of which they do not approve. Unfortunately, that plan might be expensive to administer (and we all know that for these public servants of high moral character, cheapness is next to Godliness!), and it would open the State to all kinds of age and gender discrimination law suits.

So let's just stop paying state workers of all ages and sexes anything at all. Our beloved Governor can start a PR campaign (very inexpensive and far more impressive to his political base than any real action) -- "Working for the State is a privilege not a right!" -- and then sit back and watch that payroll-less budget practically balance itself. He could put up some signs next to those "Open for Business" signs that have worked so well. Great opportunity for a photo-op! Should play well with the billionaires calling the shots for the national party -- they don't like to pay their workers either.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby jman111 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:43 pm

Zoti Bemba wrote:If a state worker used her taxpayer-supplied wages to pay for an abortion, or for a form of birth control that some fundamentalist Christians somewhere have randomly decided is the moral equivalent of an abortion, then wouldn't that also make the taxpayers indirectly responsible?

This was one of my biggest hang-ups with the Hobby Lobby decision. How is the employee's use of employer-provided insurance substantially different than her use of wages?

Should employers (including governmental bodies) be allowed to dictate the terms of usage of employees' wages? If not, why is insurance policy usage so different?

HawkHead
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Are you kidding me?

Postby HawkHead » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:00 pm

jman111 wrote:
Zoti Bemba wrote:If a state worker used her taxpayer-supplied wages to pay for an abortion, or for a form of birth control that some fundamentalist Christians somewhere have randomly decided is the moral equivalent of an abortion, then wouldn't that also make the taxpayers indirectly responsible?

This was one of my biggest hang-ups with the Hobby Lobby decision. How is the employee's use of employer-provided insurance substantially different than her use of wages?

Should employers (including governmental bodies) be allowed to dictate the terms of usage of employees' wages? If not, why is insurance policy usage so different?


This is exactly why Hobby Lobby was a farce ruling. It is saying the company can chose to limit how an employee can spend their earned wages and benefits.

It is also a joke because it allows corporations to have a religion. I am not sure how that is possible. I know the judge and lawyers had to twist into an incredible pretzel knot to make it work in their heads.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests