What about Republican women? I'm not just trying to be obnoxious--it's a serious question. I think your comment, and this article, and these bills, miss the point. It's a culture war, not a gender war. In fact, some polls have found men slightly more pro-choice than women (although I doubt if it's a statistically significant difference--meaning that there is essentially no gender difference either way):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml (skip down to "MEN AND WOMEN ON ABORTION Abortion should be...")

Also: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/22/public-opinion-on-abortion-by-party-and-gender/

Like I said, it's not a gender issue, but an ideological, political, and especially religious issue. It's easy to see it as a gender issue because most politicians are men, but that's a shallow analysis that doesn't actually reflect the gender distribution of public opinion about abortion rights.

To fight this battle politically, it's important to actually understand the lines of battle.

Yes, and men who can't get an erection should know that God has decided that he no longer wants this man to reproduce and of course, that means he should not have sex at all. It is obvious that God has made this decision. So these men, are, in fact, trying to avoid God's decision. Ewwwwww bad.

Instead of pills, these men should get down on their knees and beg God for forgiveness and maybe their little soldiers will start working again. And if not, it is God's will.

… and being a paid whore
that doesn't deliver …

may cause mal-representatives to lower their prices, possibly losing their "handled correctly" jobs, further collapsing and enfeebling what must be kept up …

the illusion of a growing economy

If it isn't handled correctly it probably won't come up at all...

Okay, I'm more than willing to accept equality on this issue, but textynn, you're getting downright mean and nasty!

The religious zealot repukes cannnot help but be mean and nasty misogynists. Afterall, they are "Christians." aren't they? (See Mahathma Gandhi on Christ and "Christians.")

An endoscope, urethra cath, and psyc exam?

We understand the cause of their psychiatric troubles. They are authoritarian followers and are totally unable to think on their own behalves. A colo-rectal exam will only futher cause problems due to prostate stimulation. Then again this could be interesting and be cause for further psychiatric examination to consider the reason some conservative congress personnel have found themselves under investigation for being overly "friendly" with visitors of the men's room at various airports since these same people react with astonishment when this activity is discovered to be taking place and involving another one of their own, who is of course considered to be "deviant" immediately upon discovery. (CAUTION!!! Once they determine this to be beneficial to males, Congress may wish to investigate the same phenomina in females to determine if they achieve similar stimulationmfrom said exam. They tend to be quite niave at times when anatomy is the subject at hand.)

If you truly desire to protect these poor souls, simply allow them to examine each other and draw the necessary conclusions. Believe me, they are quite capable of helping themselves. (Pun intended.)

In all sincereity, I am so sad for the difficulties these bastards are causing women and their quite obvious natural and sorely needed rights. I live in Texas where dear Rick Perry is soooo upset that the women here may get decent healthcare from Planned Parenthood (because at some locations they hae been known to provide abortive services when needed), even though Planned Parenthood may not provide abortion services using any federal funds, is killing our state/federal healthcare program for women simply because PP is a provider of some of those healthcare services at some locations. *ALL* they are providing using government funds is basic healthcare for women who cannot otherwise afford it. In spite of this fact, he is turning away $9.00 worth of federal funding for every $1.00 we spend for womens' healthcare simply because Planned Parenthhod provides 1/4 of those healthcare services. This in the thrid worst state in the U.S. concerning those whohave healthcare insurance. Logical no?

Frankly, I believe the federal government should be prohibited from providing Viagra, Cialas, etc. also simply to be fair.

Of course what would keep everything truly fair would be to get religion the fuck out of governmentin the first place, just like the First Amendment prescribes!!!

Republicans/conservatives are a national disease we simply must find a cure for. The symptoms alone make us a laughingstock in the world, but the internal difficulties/complications they (as any parasitic disorder) cause can be fatal to the nation!!!

Cheers textynn!

man is not murdering an unborn child by using viagra

" How is this any different than the misogyny spewed by Rush Limbaugh?"

That's like asking how a press conference put on by the "Yes Men" is different than one put on by Dow Chemical.

You need a thought map? You're lost.

Eedjit - it is irony, whereas the Limbug rant was serious. Tone-deaf at all?

Reading this, I have milk spewing out of my nose...and I may wet my pants laughing so hard.

Do you do children's parties, too? A little clown make-up, some baloon animals and a red nose...you'd have an act!

You're taking this article seriously and literally ?

About, "it's the women who'd suffer,"
I suppose that's while laughing their asses off ?

And then, you want us to take you seriously ?

P. S.

Reptiles see their own spawn as lunch, and they're only "always concerned that OTHERS adhere to," when it includes the insides of their stomachs, and only if hungry.

Your attributing cold calculating mammalian (psychopathic) perspectives and cortical thought processes -- upon reptiles -- is funny.

But then, you were being serious there, weren't you ?

"I think men should be denied access to viagra unless they can prove they are making a child within an approved marriage setting."

Bingo! I propose this as an amendment to Nina Turner's brilliant legislation. Viagra must not be used for recreation, only procreation. As others have posted recently: every sperm is sacred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

"I think men should be denied access to viagra unless they can prove they are making a child within an approved marriage setting."

What about the men who only use Viagra at family reunions so their relatives can play ring toss games?

I prefer the message of this apparently black woman in the current state as oppposed what all women were originally and her message, though I'd rather not use such plain English, as it's so British, but maybe she's part British. Maybe a bit of Scot! They're very plain spoken folks.

But as to the turnabout is fair play on women state legistalors doing this to be ironic and sarcastic, I'm all for it. But any serious legislation such as this, which I'd not assume this is, wouldn't be at all helpful.

A little more of Pierre Elliot Trudeau's "The state (nation state for Murkans) has no business in the bedrooms of the nation," rather than this bit of some progressive and maybe feminists legislators seriously advocating this kind of public intrusion into people's private lives in the style of neo con gang is something which is just plain wrong in every way.

In violation of any person's right to privacy and to deal with relationships without state intrusion such as this is a detriment to all. If you're a straight woman and your boyfiiend becomes sexually dysfuntional, then a law goes through to say you have to put that down in writing for others to see to get even just the opportunity to have this treated, then how much fun would that be? You likely would have a bad relationship as the sexual is very much a part of all this. But even worse in many states, maybe even most, men in such circumstances can't even get any health insurance coverage for this.
Now we get to the "good part." This favors the one per cent, as they will always have funds to pay out of pocket the way Rash Windbag would if he were sexually dysfuntional or impotent. Now isn't that "just great" for the one per cent? For the 99%, this means for straight men, you're SOL (sadly out of luck, the cleaned up version)). 'Real nice!" I mean "why should any straight fellow who's not one of the one per cent" have any access to any treatment for sexual dysfunction even if it means he'll never have a relationship in such circumstances. Now we can all go straight to hell in hand basket except for the one per cent. Nor is it likely sexual dysfunction wouldn't affect gay men. They too if not one of the one per cent can then learn what it's like to not have any relationship with someone. Gee what "a real enlightened deal" this is! What the hell! This will "really put all to right."

Life can be better. Sometimes it's best to consider such insane ideas and scrap them. We could learn from tradtional societies never exposed to European intrusion or colonization in the Pacific. Western societies could do with less of their arrogance as Martin Luther King Jr once said. We have fallen victim to this deadly arrogance too often before. In such societies nobody needs to get the upper hand on anyone else but people simply live together as equals, all part of the Machiavellian status escalator of egalitarianism two north of the UK border Scots evolutionary psychologists wrote about after observing same.

Sardonic is good. I'm not in the least opposed to being bitterly ironic and sarcastic. But sometimes we need to keep all these proposals on that basis. The con servatives take themselves and their insane ideology of dividing all into owner and servants too seriously.

In Canada, exposed breasts are legal for both genders, but women tend to prefer being covered. Choice is good.

Very, Very well said......

Its to bad that we couldn't get that point across.....

I wonder though if all of this giving into the Clergy has anything to do with political donations....I think it would be something to look into considering the Reichties are sooooo willing to listen to the Clergy and not the people that it is about!!!!!

They say they don't, but why do I get the feeling that is not true!!!!!!....They are not suppose to, are they??????

Genie, your comment is great and right on point. What's lousing up sexuality in America, besides (big besides) patriarchy, is the buying and selling of sex and the objectification of women to do it and connecting it to violence. But the fundi men don't care about women except as objects to control either for rent or for sale (marriage). And the fundi women are convinced feminists are sluts for claiming their own sexuality while they deny theirs except in the confines of traditional marriage which pretty much means denying it. But women on the left abet the men who push porn, and other practices that revile women, in their quest to be that sexually liberated woman. It is capitalism destroying family life and for that matter poisoning all relationships with its hustler ethic. But the right wingers can't blame capitalism because they believe in it like another fundamentalist religion which it is. Its called market fundamentalism and it is as stupid as all the other ones but eminently useful to the 1% as is the religious stuff they like to sell to the rubes.
Maybe one day women of both sides will be able to come to common ground on this and make a real revolution.

skeptimist, no matter how close you are to your gearshift, your car can never love you.