Apparently, trivializing women’s affairs is not that hard to do, and women may wish to pay attention to the mood swing of politicians who are thinly veiling their views against women. They would not be saying these things if they thought it would cost them votes…
Did this State Rep suggest women should buy insurance to plan for rape like an auto policy? I am not making this up.
(the CNN video is no longer available)
Read the Whole article: Abortion debate trivializes rape By CNN’s LZ Granderson: He states:
“Earlier this month, Kansas State Rep. Pete DeGraaf made some rather outlandish comments during a debate centered on banning insurance companies in Kansas from offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans unless a woman’s life were at risk. The bill, which the governor signed into law last week, would require a woman to carry a separate policy for abortions. When Rep. Barbara Bollier voiced concern for women who may become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, this exchange followed:
DeGraaf: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”
Bollier: “And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?”
DeGraaf: “I have a spare tire on my car.”
“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”
Ladies and gentleman of the great state of Kansas, your tax dollars at work.
Efforts to make women who cant afford their own insurance pay for their own abortions are all attempts to make it extremely difficult for them to choose. In other words, if you can’t make abortions illegal, just make them impossible except for the rich.
Then there’s the argument that many antiabortion folks have: that government should stay out of people’s personal lives (except when it comes to women’s issues). Sure, I agree that taking responsibility and not waiting for welfare handouts is a good thing. But there is a time and place for a government to assist its people. Having decent access to medical care in emergencies or disasters is a place where the collected funds of tax payer money should be used to help people. So is buying insurance for legal surgery. I don’t see why abortions should be exempt from public funding simply because some people do not agree with this law.
In what other instance to people who object to a policy or law get to create funding restrictions to blunt the law? If many people object to a road, a war or weapons sales to certain countries is funding restricted because a lot of people object? It is only with the issue of abortion that a legal operation is restricted; because it involves women.
On the one hand some argue that women should pay their own insurance for abortions because government shouldn’t pay for people’s private affairs, yet, on the other hand, many of these same people say that the government should dictate when a woman must have a child.
I wonder what would be a male situation where men need insurance for personal matters. Should prostrate exams be exempt from insurance? What about erectile dysfunction? The point is that if only certain medical situations are to be covered by insurance, then who gets to decide what gets covered and what doesn’t? Laws should not be based upon whether you like a medical procedure. Abortions are legal procedures last time I checked, so there should be no question of coverage. I dislike and disagree with many medical procedures, but does this mean I should rally people to make them illegal to fund?
I think it’s important for women to express outrage over such sentiments because there are other alarming trends like mandatory sonograms before abortions. While I cannot imagine going backwards in time to the point where all women must have children no matter what, and I do see that this debate might make more women think carefully instead of having a handy abortion, should this type of so called sexual education be forced? (It is now law in some states that a woman has to see the sonogram of the fetus before making a decision to terminate pregnancy.) Likewise, should potential soldiers be shown images of dead people before ‘choosing’ to enlist?
Again, a woman should have the choice to see a sonogram, but isn’t making it illegal to have an abortion without seeing a sonogram a modern medieval tactic?
I think that those who wish to make women have children no matter what should also support the welfare system they will need to afford them.
Amara Charles is a highly acclaimed sex and intimacy expert who has taught workshops internationally since 1989, helping men and women reconnect with their passion, reclaim their sexual energy and deepen their appreciation for life. Charles is the author of several books, including The Sexual Practices of Quodoushka. Published by Inner Traditions/Bear & CO., it will be available in wide release in August 2011. Charles has been a guest on BBC, ABC radio, and HBO and has spoken at numerous national and international conferences where she gives presentations about sex and intimacy for various groups, corporate clients and universities