I don't understand the huge objection to emergency contraception, especially in a state like South Dakota where they keep trying to ban abortion. Easy access to EC means less abortions which is a good thing, right? Even Catholic doctrine states that until a fertilized egg has implanted, it's not a pregnancy. You'd think that this would be the perfect solution to the issue; it doesn't terminate a pregnancy, but it lets a woman have control over her body.

Obviously I'm approaching this incorrectly, somehow. It's just so bewildering and sad to me when I read things like this.

Genny,
The heart of the argument is that many people believe that EC is the same thing as an abortion (In fact, that's the same issue with birth control in general). As you stated, since the fertilized egg has not yet implanted, this cannot be the case. You cannot abort a pregancy that hasn't happened yet.

I don't understand it either. It seems the US is the only country that's fighting about birth control. Many other countries aren't fighting about this.

The reason why these folks think EC is some kind of abortion is because they think sperm is a potential life.

If sperm is potential life, then where is all of the hoopla over condoms? Condoms destroy many innocent sperms every day! But, wait, condoms aren't that bad because it is about a man taking charge of his reproductive abilities.

Their legislators retreated on the most recent attempt to pass an abortion ban (even with exceptions), because they knew the public was opposed. But EC notification seems like a “fuzzy� issue, so they can get away with stonewalling. Hypocrites.

"Obviously I'm approaching this incorrectly, somehow."-Genny

"But EC notification seems like a 'fuzzy' issue..."-Ccall

I'd say that we are apporaching this from an incorrect approach. The issue is about whether or not we should require businesses to do certain things. I am a firm believer in the free market and the real issue here is excessive government involvement in business. I honestly don't understand why feminists are so up-in-arms over this topic. If certain health providers don't want to provide certain services then that is their choice. You don't have to seek their business. If another health provider wishes to provide EC, then they'll receive that business in addition to all other health services. Such businesses would naturally be more successfull and "beat out" competing businesses. We do not need government interventions to defeat this.

"But, wait, condoms aren't that bad because it is about a man taking charge of his reproductive abilities."-SassyGirl

Sassy Girl, as a man I don't appreciate such hostile comments. Everyone here knows that women have numerous contraceptive options, far more than men. The major opponents to measures such as these are religeous zealots and capitalists, NOT men trying to exert their "male privledge".

"You don't have to seek their business. If another health provider wishes to provide EC, then they'll receive that business in addition to all other health services. Such businesses would naturally be more successfull and "beat out" competing businesses."

so what if the only place that will dispense EC is clear across town? or in another state even? how are these women going to get to the possibly ONE place that will distribute the EC? this really helps no one, if EC is going to be available, it should be available to everyone, not just the women that have the transportaion to get to it (and examples have already shown that this is the case, with so many places refusing to dispense it)

Elektrodot, the only thing anyone is entitled to is their individual rights. Services are not rights. If they have to drive that far to get services then that's what they have to do. What I've outlined clearly shows that such situations will not last forever or even for that long. That's why stores such as Walmart have been so successful. They've made their store a one-stop destination for a number of goods. If health providers wish to make do the same for general OG/BYN, abortion, and EC then they'll get that business. If not, they'll lose that business and slack behind the competition. If it becomes known that certain states or cities don't offer certain services then they'll scare off many people who might otherwise live there. This is detrimental to that state's power.

The simple fact is laws requiring business to provide certain services is an infringment upon the individual rights of business owners. No one has the right do so and feminism, a movement about individual rights, certainly shouldn't advocate for such measures.

Listen my dear libertarian friend, firm believer in the free market, when I am raped (maybe even brutalized) I am gonna go into the nearest hospital, no I am not gonna drive 100 mi to the next town (or maybe 400 to the next state?). If they don’t give me EC and I get pregnant forces of the free market are not going to protect me from getting pregnant. If I am young and uneducated and don’t know about EC, it’s gonna be even worse. There should be a minimum standard of dignity with which human beings are treated, independent of what the free market dictates.

i dont know anything about free markets, but that sure doesnt sound like anything id want to beleive in. good lord, wheres the humanity? i take humans over business any day.

Oh yes, because the free market without any control has worked so well to the benefit of all. Look at 19th-century Britain, for example.

Or not.

Health care is not a business--one of the ways you can tell is that most health-care centers are not-for-profit. And many health-care centers enjoy a practical monopoly on the surrounding citizenry. For them not provide necessary health-care means that the people who live nearby don't get that health-care. You may consider that to be an acceptable consequence of a free market. I don't; if the free market requries that women endure unwanted pregnancies, then I am of the opinion that it is the construction of the market that has to change.

A "free market" is not some God-given state of affairs in which we cannot meddle. It is a human construction, and never is that more apparent than when we interrogate the concept of "free." For whom is this market free? Who has free choice with in it? The so-called free market is about freedom for business owners, not freedom for the clients and workers who are so often radically disempowered within it.

Further, shrugging one's shoulders and saying hey, it's a free market ignores the fact that "business"-owners are influenced by their own biases--why is it always procedures directed at women that done away with? I don't support a tyranny of the rich over the poor, especially when racism and sexism inflect said tyranny.

Businesses are not individuals, and I see no reason why they should have the same rights as individuals.

Ivy,
I am taking that you are also ok with exploitation of workers, because you know free market allows that.
How do you define individual rights?
Certain services are rights, including health care. It is even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I think you are confusing feminism with Libertarianism.

If you're not going to drive the distance to get the pregnancey aborted then you've only failed yourself. You have the right to seek those services, not a right to them. I do agree that information should be made available where they're offered but this is a choice made by that business. We don't need public service announcments and government regulations to accomplish this. Any business trying to capitalize on this market will advertise on their own. They only way government mandated information need be necessary is if we require businesses to provide services they don't want to.

As for your comment about dignity, while commendable, I have to say the answer is no. Dignity is an esteem need and no one is entitled to esteem. It must be earned. If others choose go give it freely then that's their individual choice. People cannot be legally penalized for being rude or disrespectful.

While forces in the free market will not protect a woman from getting pregnant (that's a matter of biology, not economics), it will guarantee the rise of services. For a hypothetical, a community sees a rise in teen pregnancy. These young teens want to abort their babies, whether conceived by rape or not. A concerned individual within the community notices that these needed services are not available. Yet there is a market for such services. This individual studies medicine, opens their own clinic, and provides the much needed services previously not available to the community. Now, in addition to receiving all normal business, this individual receives extra income from abortion and EC services. This individual has an upper hand in the free market and will (probably) force others to adopt similar services just to compete. This scenario is true and will always work. The only way it cannot is if legal barriers are put in place to prevent such services from being available, such as anti-abortion legislation. Of course, this legislation is also illegal in a free market as it infringes upon the individual's rights.

You may not agree with Libertarianism but I assure you that such doubts can be put to rest if you just listen to what they truely offer.

Sorry, Ivy, the free market analogy does not hold for healthcare. There are two types of healthcare, emergent and non-emergent, both handled completely differently. For non-emergent care, people have an oppurtunity to shop around for better prices and services. Emergent care is very different. People do not have an oppurtunity to 'shop around'. EC falls into emergent care in my opinion, especially following sexual assault. If a hospital has a policy that sexual assault victems will be given information regarding emergency contraception, then the policy should be followed, period. Is there any clause in the policy that says that if a healhcare provider opts out of giving information, someone else needs to dispense that information? To knowingly withold pertinent information about a patient's treatment options (particualrly time sensitive options like EC) is not only ethically wrong, it may also be illegal. I would think that the hospital would be opening itself up for a malpractice lawsuit.

If you're not going to drive the distance to get the pregnancey aborted then you've only failed yourself. You have the right to seek those services, not a right to them. I do agree that information should be made available where they're offered but this is a choice made by that business. We don't need public service announcments and government regulations to accomplish this. Any business trying to capitalize on this market will advertise on their own. The only way government mandated information would be necessary is if we require businesses to provide services they don't want to.

As for your comment about dignity, while commendable, I have to say the answer is no. Dignity is an esteem need and no one is entitled to esteem. It must be earned. If others choose go give it freely then that's their individual choice. People cannot be legally penalized for being rude or disrespectful.

While forces in the free market will not protect a woman from getting pregnant (that's a matter of biology, not economics), it will guarantee the rise of services. For a hypothetical, a community sees a rise in teen pregnancy. These young teens want to abort their babies, whether conceived by rape or not. A concerned individual within the community notices that these needed services are not available. Yet there is a market for such services. This individual studies medicine, opens their own clinic, and provides the much needed services previously not available to the community. Now, in addition to receiving all normal business, this individual receives extra income from abortion and EC services. This individual has an upper hand in the free market and will (probably) force others to adopt similar services just to compete. This scenario is true and will always work. The only way it cannot is if legal barriers are put in place to prevent such services from being available, such as anti-abortion legislation. Of course, this legislation is also illegal in a free market as it infringes upon the individual rights of all parties involved.

You may not agree with Libertarianism but I assure you that such doubts can be put to rest if you just listen to what they truely offer.

These young teens want to abort their babies, whether conceived by rape or not. A concerned individual within the community notices that these needed services are not available. Yet there is a market for such services. This individual studies medicine, opens their own clinic, and provides the much needed services previously not available to the community.

Gosh, this will be so helpful to all those women with decade-long pregnancies! God bless the free market!

Guys...I think we might be in the presence of Sean! Just a guess based on the sophomoric self-importance and naivete of his comments.

If you "truely" [sic] cannot even wrap your mind around the fact that not everyone lives within your "priviledged" [sic] world of car ownership and/or sufficient alternative resources to travel to another state; the luxury of time off from school or work to accommodate this interstate scavenger hunt for EC; AND informational resources to even locate other providers that will provide EC (whether via Internet access, a local grassroots network, or professionals willing to disclose the information), then you really have no business discussing anything other than your own, extremely limited frame of reference, and frankly, couching every argument you make in the disclaimer that "I've never been anywhere except my suburban hometown and my college campus, whee!!" I'm guessing that the free market has always been good to YOU, so sure, it makes sense that you champion it.

EG, my thoughts exactly. We are not bound to the free market as if it is some inevitable law of nature...it is a social construction, as are all economic systems.

Further, I'd love to hear your thoughts, Ivy, on the other forms of birth control for men that HAVE been developed and have failed in your precious "free market", likely because men prefer to enjoy the luxury of leaving this responsibility to women. THAT is why we have more available methods than you. And if, as you suggest, dignity is merely an "esteem need" to which no one is entitled, I guess you also take issue with anti-torture laws and civil rights legislation (since, hey! one could argue that a sign saying "whites only" is merely an assault on someone's DIGNITY--or at least, a privileged white person might feel justified making that argument), which actually puts you at odds with most of the international community.

“If you're not going to drive the distance to get the pregnancey aborted then you've only failed yourself.�
Um, no, I wasn’t talking about. How did abortion even come up?! I was just saying that a rape victim shouldn’t have to drive from hospital to hospital, town to town or state to state to find a hospital that would provide her with EC. Plus, that is not even what this bill is about. This bill is about informing the victim about EC. So if she doesn’t know about it in the first place then she’s not going to try to obtain it from another hospital.

Exactly, Charity! A free market is predicated on a lot of socially constructed conditions: restricted access to resources, for one; the use of a representative system of exchange like money, for another; the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, who can afford to start businesses; the absence of capital from most others, who then have to go to work (or, as I like to call it, "wage-slavery"--so much for the "free" market) for the business owners; etc. There's nothing particularly "natural," or to my mind, necessarily good, about any of those conditions.

“As for your comment about dignity, while commendable, I have to say the answer is no. Dignity is an esteem need and no one is entitled to esteem. It must be earned. If others choose go give it freely then that's their individual choice. People cannot be legally penalized for being rude or disrespectful.�

I am sorry Ivy I don’t think you are qualified to talk about “rights�. Human dignity is what human rights are about. The concept of human rights comes form the notion that humans are entitled to a standard minimum of dignity, which is inherent. If you don’t think there is no inherent right to dignity, you have no place talking about rights. Now go away troll.

"These young teens want to abort their babies, whether conceived by rape or not. A concerned individual within the community notices that these needed services are not available. Yet there is a market for such services. This individual studies medicine, opens their own clinic, and provides the much needed services previously not available to the community."

And in the meantime, women are forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their will; good thing that's not an infringement of their rights the way requiring a hospital to provide health care would be. Well, I'm convinced.

Are all you people insane? Doing away with the free market? All the programs feminists have designed depend on the money provided by the free market! Now you guys are resorting to juvenile name calling? "Troll"? "I think this might be Sean"?

The only arguements any of you people have managed to barely form are all based purely off emotion. There is no logic or secular purpose to your comments. Dignity is a right? How do we evaluate this "right"? I guess if I'm offended by Civil Rights legislation, if it "violates my right to dignity", then it should be abolished, right?

I am amazed by the sheer zealotry and fanaticism you people have displayed. I thought feminists were supposed to be "enlightened". You individuals, at least, have certainly proven you are not.

The only way my comments are "naive" is because you have been self-centered. I thought, being a feminist site, this would be a place for discussion about civil rights, where all individuals could come together and share their comments in opend discussion. Apparently it's just a place for back slapping and crotch grabbing.

Thank God, EG and Sojourner, you are not representative of all feminists. I'm reminded about a previous thread, "PC my ass." Why do feminists have a bad name? You people have displayed why.

Are all you people insane? Doing away with the free market? All the programs feminists have designed depend on the money provided by the free market! Now you guys are resorting to juvenile name calling? "Troll"? "I think this might be Sean"?

The only arguements any of you people have managed to barely form are all based purely off emotion. There is no logic or secular purpose to your comments. Dignity is a right? How do we evaluate this "right"? I guess if I'm offended by Civil Rights legislation, if it "violates my right to dignity", then it should be abolished, right?

I am amazed by the sheer zealotry and fanaticism you people have displayed. I thought feminists were supposed to be "enlightened". You individuals, at least, have certainly proven you are not.

The only way my comments are "naive" is because you have been self-centered. I thought, being a feminist site, this would be a place for discussion about civil rights, where all individuals could come together and share their comments in opend discussion. Apparently it's just a place for back slapping and crotch grabbing.

Thank God, EG and Sojourner, you are not representative of all feminists. I'm reminded about a previous thread, "PC my ass." Why do feminists have a bad name? You people have displayed why.

Ivy/Sean,

My comment about civil rights and anti-torture legislation, which you misinterpreted, was meant to convey that most of society disagrees with your stance that dignity is not a right that is enforceable by law.

And way to come back with such gems as "you people" (always a winner!) and the bizarre comment that the free market support "all the programs feminists have designed." Actually, by your OWN previous argument, it is government funding that "we feminists" are obsessed with to fund our program. so how do you reconcile making both those contradictory accusations?

Hmm, crotch-grabbing? Now there's a GREAT idea! :)

Torture and civil rights are not about dignity, they're about individual rights. Individual rights are rights to life which can be defined as a person using reason to produce in order to survive. Clearly, if we make certain populations unable to perform certain jobs, or torture people, we are using physical and legal force to deny people their individual rights. If you're curious you should read Any Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

As for the second part of your post, Charity, the government does not produce. All the funds it has comes from taxes. These taxes are taken from productive individuals. Therefore, the money feminists need to fund all their programs are dependent upon a productive society; and as any historian will tell you, capitalist societies have always been more successful than others. That's why it's insane for feminists to oppose a capitalist/free market economy. As you can see, there's nothing contradictory about my assertion.

As for the "you people" comment, I'm specifically refering to you, EG, Sojourner and others like you who are so quick to judge and condemn.

While I do have liberatarian leanings, I firmly believe that health care should NOT be dictated by free-market standards. It works in theory but in practice it's impractical and dangerous. Good health care benefits society, therefore it should be readily available and supplemented by the government in order to create best functioning society possible. If we let the people providing the health care choose who to provide it to and how much health care each person got regardless of what was actually wrong with them, we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

Ivy, you never answered the question about free market dictating the amount of male controlled birth control available to the public. Like to take a stab at that one or just insult us all?

Given the response to my earlier comment, now I have the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" running through my head. Remember boys, MAS-turbation is really MASS murder! Sorry, I'm done now.

Ivy, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just not paying attention? Your argument is hopelessly flawed, and when that fact is pointed out to you, your response is "this is why no one likes feminists"?
Are you kidding me?

You say you came here for open discussion, but it seems like what you're really after are people who will nod and smile in agreement with you even when you're completely wrong.

Why not just buy yourself a few of those bobblehead dolls? Your unwavering genius need never be questioned again!

Ivy,
No one said to get rid of the free market as a whole. The point was that the free market framework cannot be applied to healthcare.

As I noted earlier, healthcare is broken up into two types of care - emergent and non-emergent. Non-emergent care would be things like annaul physicals, mammograms, other preventative procedures, and care for mild illnesses. Economically, non-emergent care is highly elastic. People will pay for it if they need it, but can afford to shop around for a better price (internet pharmacueticals), more comprehensive services (specialists, as opposed to a general care physician). People may also skip this care all together if they cannot find services to meet their needs or cannot afford the care. Emergent care is considered economically inelastic. At the time of a healthcare crisis, a person cannot shop around for better prices or services.

EC falls into the emergent healthcare category, based on the timeframe when it needs to be taken for effectiveness as well as the ramifications of an unwanted pregnancy. The bill in question was only requiring healthcare workers to inform sexual assault victems of that EC exists as a care option. The Victem's do not have much of a choice for where they are taken for care. Outside of large metropolitan areas, there is only one hospital for a large surrounding area, often an hour's distance or more radius in rural communities. To deny a sexual assault victem, or any patient for that matter, a viable treatment option is not only cruel, but also possibly illegal. The Patent Bill of Rights published by the American Hospital Association (AHA) states "The patient has the right to and is encouraged to obtain from physicians and other direct caregivers relevant, current, and understandable information concerning diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis." and goes on to say "The patient has the right to expect reasonable continuity of care when appropriate and to be informed by physicians and other caregivers of available and realistic patient care options when hospital care is no longer appropriate."

I'm about to be done now too! "A person using reason to produce in order to survive"? Wow, glorifying both logical positivism and capitalism in one poorly-worded stroke! I'm simply in awe of your utterly myopic view of the world. What a remarkably androcentric, eurocentric capitalist you were groomed to be!

Actually, the way in which you accused feminists of seeking government intervention and funding for our *agenda* was evocative of a socialist ideology which "you people" often accuse feminists of subscribing to, which would in fact contradict your subsequent description of feministss benefiting from a competitive profit (capitalist) system. Essentially, you've shown that you will twist your arguments in order to ascribe to feminism whatever happens to advance your (largely unidentifiable, given the contradictions and convolutions) argument, on a whim.

In closing, as for dignity in itself not being a right enforceable by law in and of itself, here's an excerpt from Adam Zagorin in Time magazine, 11/10/06, whose words you may value more than mine, as he is a man:

"Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba... As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation...and other controversial interrogation techniques."

If humiliation is a violation of individual rights that is punishable by law, then dignity is an individual right that is enforceable by law.

Ivy, you seem to have a very black and white way of looking at the world. You assume that because I critique the concept of the free market, and remark upon its inadequacies, and support protecting citizens from its ravages, that I'm in favor of doing away with it altogether. That's your mistake, and betrays a very juvenile view of the world.

You also seem to dismiss all concern for human happiness as "irrational" and "emotional"; but it seems to me that it is you who cannot formulate a secular justification for your idea of the "right" way of doing things. Instead of justifying your views, you merely appeal to the "free market" as some form of "because God says so." Well, the free market is not God. If it interferes with human happiness and well-being, I don't see what justification it has to continue doing so. As I and others have pointed out, there are numerous ways in which the so-called free market has caused suffering (child labor, for instance). And then, when we do so, instead of acknowledging the difficulties of that philosophy and discussing ways of addressing them, you flip out. You can't take criticism seriously? Then why should we take you seriously?

" These taxes are taken from productive individuals."

Well, yes and no. They are also taken from businesses and from non-productive individuals (such as the independently wealthy). I'd be in favor of a taxation system that removed more of the tax burden to non-productive sources of income.

"EG, Sojourner and others like you who are so quick to judge and condemn."

Disagreeing with you, doing so articulately, and raising cogent problems with your world-view is "quick to judge and condemn"? Well, for one thing, it's not as though this conversation is the first time I've run across Ayn Rand's views in my life; believe it or not, you are not some kind of messiah bringing enlightenment. I've come across your ideas before, I've thought about them, and I disagree with them. Why shouldn't I judge them? Isn't that the kind of discussion you want? Where we listen to and weigh each other's ideas? And quick to condemn? Well, as I say, I find those ideas wanting. Am I supposed to pretend that I don't so that your feelings don't get hurt?

Ivy, your market-centric worldview is inaccurate, especially regarding any type of emergency services offered by society. You seem like an educated sort, so I’m sure you’re up to speed on social contract theory. In brief, we make a deal with the government. At its core, government serves primarily to protect. In exchange for protection we pay taxes and obey laws. That protection includes a wide array of government functions, including military, police, legal, financial, right down to the local fire department, health inspector, and, yes *emergency services*.
Police protection is not a free market function. Army protection is not a free market function. Neither is SEC regulation, FDIC insurance, FEMA relief (when it works), fire departments, or any emergency services. These are not commodities like shoes or mini-bikes, and people DO have a right to them. An explicit right. If my house catches fire, I have a right to have the fire department come put it out. And if my leg is burned off in the fire, I have a right to go the hospital and have my life saved. A right. I cannot be turned away to die in the street. And if a rape victim shows up at the hospital she has a RIGHT to emergency medical care, and she should be informed of all options available to her regarding emergency medical care.
Please offer an explanation of how emergency medical care is a commodity, because I can see no reasonable argument to support such a statement.

SeanCarlin84,

Are you enjoying all the progressive emails?

Don't feed the troll.

Dear Ccall,

Thank you for being the voice of reason. While I do believe in Libertarian principles I am not an absolute Libertarian. I do recognize the need for some public services.

I have read you arguement and I agree with what you have to say. Emergency services such as you describe them are provided by the government and should provide as much help as possible. We have a right to those services. I was primarily talking about private practice services. Thanks for setting me straight. :)

As for Social Contract Theory, I do not agree with it's premise which casts the government as something higher or on par with the citizenry. I'm basing this thought off of your description because I am a psychology major, not a sociology major, and have not been exposed to this theory. It does sound interesting. Thanks for the tip. :)

The primary reason I put up such a fuss is because most of the programs and legislative acts put forth by feminists have a strong socialistic lean. I do not agree that socialism is the best way to further equal rights for everyone. Everything feminism wishes to accomplish can be argued from the perspective of objectivism/libertarianism (except where public services are concerned ;) ). The subjective theory of morality inherent in socialisitc thought is dangerous to what we recognize as a free society. It places one person's rights above another's based on thoughts and feelings alone.

Again, thanks for making a clear, articulate arguement, Ccall.

P.S.-DonnaDarko, I am not Sean so I won't be getting any of your e-mails. :( That was a rumor someone started when they counldn't think of something intelligent to say.

VT Idealist, I should thank you as well for your earlier post where you throughly explained your position and the difference between non-emergent care and emergent care. I would have mentioned it in my last post, but I read Ccall's first. :)

Ivy, well we have progress, so that’s good. I do think that if you dig into “consent of the governed�, you might find that rather than wanting the government to pay for everything, a portion of feminist concerns can be traced to rectifying violations of the social contract – the government not living up to its end of the bargain to equally protect each citizen. If a man makes $20 an hour and a woman gets $14 for the same job, is it socialist for her to demand $20? I don’t consider myself a socialist but if any group of people is systematically paid less for some reason unrelated to productivity or skill level, then I think that group has a right to redress their grievances to the government that’s not looking out for them. If a restaurant states they will only serve white customers, is it socialist for the government to force them to serve everyone? Does it limit the rights of the restaurant owner? Is it legislating morality? This obviously is a case that has been settled in this country, but the $20/$14 issue has not, and I don’t really see it as feminists looking for a handout.

I agree with you Ccall about the government living up to it's end of the bargain. There are certain services which affect the entire community and these should be run by the government. For instance, if firefighters were privatized, what do we do if part of the city, which hasn't paid for their services, catches on fire? What if they could respond more quickly than the competition? Damage done could be in the millions. Clearly we need a communal fire brigade.

Your next statement I must contend. Do I believe women should be paid the same amount of money for the same job? No. Do I believe women should be paid the same amount of money for the same work? Yes. I imagine you're talking about the Wage Gap Myth in this country which is a feminist issue long debunked. The primary reason women earn less is due to choice, not discrimination, and it would be socialist to pay women the same for not putting in as much work. Take Wimbeldon for instance. Should these athletes be paid the same for not putting up as much work? No. Should they be "paid for effort"? Well, where do we draw the line on this one? Should a husband, who tried his best, who put forth his best effort, be given a presumption of equal parenting?

Numerous studies have shown that when you compare single women to single men the wage difference drops to 5%. If you want to blame that on discrimination then I fully back you. However, most feminists look at the data which shows that women earn 76 cents for every dollar made by men (International Labor Organization). This piece of data comes from a national average. All working men are compared to all working women regardless of nuance. These researchers looked at income and nothing else. Things they didn't look for include perceived discrimination, attitudes of employers and attitudes of fellow employees.

The difference in pay is due to a number of factors including education, experience, hours worked, age, and job held. On average, full-time working women put in 40 hours compared to men's 51. Should the woman be paid as much as the man? Women on average take 5 to 10 years out of the workforce to care for children and sick family members; loosing valuable job experience. Should these women, who have less expertise, be paid the same as ANYBODY who kept working those years?

Ultimately the answer is no. Women are not special and the rules of the free market should and do apply to them. If women earn less it is because of the choices they make. If you want to blame these decisions on "patriarchal values", just remember that we are not so weak. Individual rights, as described by Any Rand, as well as the entire field of psychology, demonstrate that we are not confined/enslaved by the values we were raised on. We have the power to change and value what we wish. If this were not possible then feminism would not exist.

Ahh... Ayn Rand. Of course. This thread is very off-track. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah- the right to know about EC when seeking emergency services after a sexual assault.

There is more to this bill in South Dakota. The forces opposing simply TELLING women about EC? The Catholic Hospital. Two lobbyists for Avera Hospitals were they key and very busy opposition to this bill. They are the ones that got the clause put in it also.

In South Dakota there are two hospital groups. Sioux Valley (aka: Sanford Health) and Avera. They have equally divided up the state. They own all the hospitals and most of the clinics. In many rural areas the only available care is at an Avera hospital. Avera is very active is pushing a conservative Catholic agenda in state health care policies but they try to claim they are providing care without bias. They also get a large amount of the various federal funds, accept medicaid etc.

The sole reason this failed? Lobbyists for a Catholic hospital.

Actually, I think Ivy/Sean's p.o.v. is very relevant to the thread, because he speaks for the very real segment of the population who truly believe that the power of the individual can overcome or get around any degree of disenfranchisement or institutional oppression, and it's consequently OK to allow variation in people's access to services, including EC, because if they are motivated enough they will find a way to get them somehow, somewhere. (These are the same people who believe "downward drift" hypotheses can fully explain things like poverty, crime/deviance, and homelessness.) Such ideas as this undermine advocacy efforts aimed at assisting women without certain resources in obtaining services to which they are entitled.

Sadly, it appears these are also people who define fields of study in sweeping and completely factually inaccurate ways. It's inaccurate to say the "entire field of psychology" reaches consensus on just about anything, in particular a definition or emphasis on "individual rights" or an assertion of the ability, under whatever circumstances, to overcome external barriers like "the values we were raised on" to achieve self-actualization. On the contrary, the field of psychology is not even confined to individual-level phenomena (but also encompasses group, community, and system-level phenomena) and the psychological theories and models with the greatest longevity, utility, and adherence are those that acknowledge the powerful influence of environmental factors on individual behavior, learning, personality development, and even physiology - whether those environmental factors be rewards / incentives / punishments / observed efficiency of one's own behaviors; the infant's caregiving environment; birth order in the family; trauma / abuse / neglect in the family of origin; group dynamics and social processes, including social desirability effects; cultural variables such as age, race, class, gender, and religion; and macro-level structures and systems, including meaning-making systems. Yes of course there is individual agency, but there is no one universal individual reality, and psychology would be the last to decontextualize individual-level phenomena.

Rand believed in the individual, the free market and was anti-collectivist and anti-feminist. Her/Ivy's views make him a troll.

My "boyfriend" Thom Hartmann on Air America Radio said last night laissez-faire capitalism since Sumerian times had to be regulated. Free market fundamentalism is a sham.

I like to bait trolls as much as the next, but y'all are just feeding it.

How about this? Rights other than the right to property are inherently anti-capitalist. In a pure capitalist society, the rich could hire people to snatch me up and use me as a slave. That's why we put restrictions on businesses, like not being able to discriminate, or put arsenic in baby formula.

Thom Hartmann was talking about modern-day slavery last night. *Sigh*

The ownership society is about serfs and slaves. We live in a state of corporate feudalism.

"...acknowledge the powerful influence of environmental factors on individual behavior, learning, personality development, and even physiology - whether those environmental factors be rewards / incentives / punishments / observed efficiency of one's own behaviors; the infant's caregiving environment; birth order in the family; trauma / abuse / neglect in the family of origin; group dynamics and social processes, including social desirability effects; cultural variables such as age, race, class, gender, and religion; and macro-level structures and systems, including meaning-making systems."-Charity

LOL. You've all really bought into victimhood, haven't you. It's as if you've completely missed everything. Particularly this little piece:

"...we are not confined/enslaved by the values we were raised on. We have the power to change and value what we wish. If this were not possible then feminism would not exist."-Ivy

Tell me, Charity, how does your fatalistic view of psychological discovery explain this? I never left out context, Charity. Obviously a person cannot reject nothing. Every human being is born with the capacity for reason, and it is reason that has freed us and continues to free us from all ailments in the universe. What would you do with this knowledge, Charity? "Make" a world in your image? Please. The Socialistic future feminism wishes to take us into has already been revealed. Just look at Russia. You want to examine our macrosystem? Captialism is our macrosysetm. Individual rights are our macrosystem. The "patriarchy" you are fighting against is nothing more than the remnants of a statist/socialistic philosophy; an archaic remnant from our agrarain history, when only men had the strength to till the land. Men were the chief producers of the necessities of life and this gave them more political power. Naturally, these values stayed around even after we created a capitalist society. Just because these oppressive, patriarchal values were present when capitalism came into existance does not mean that the capitalist system is "patriarchal" or oppressive. This is a flawed association.

The entire time I have been telling everyone here that women are strong enough to overcome obstacles and survive and succeed at life. All you have done is argue the opposite. Why? Because I or the free market are not "compassionate" enough. I've read the posts on this forum. I've spoken my mind and been vilified. If anyone is lacking compassion it is the members of this forum. Those who have been willing to talk rationally were few. Paleblue is the only one who wasn't anxious to tear my head off. Ccall was polite, as was VT in one of his/her earlier posts on this thread.

What exactly does everyone here have against the concept of personal responsibility? Oppression? That hasn't existed in this nation for over 40 years, though I'm sure you'll want to believe otherwise. Your war is a cultural war and you care nothing of compromise or peace. You radicals will fight until you either die or succeed in forcing everyone to believe as you do. I've heard moderate feminists speak and they consider many of your positions foolish. Ranting about an EC bill that will eventually be passed! Ranting about a movie which depicts a woman being chained (I know, another thread)! Why do you waste your lives on such needless hate? Oh! Because the fragile minds of our nation's youth will be warped and twisted to believe women are commodities.

Such a pathetic lot. Praising Gloria Steinem and sneering at Ayn Rand? This says it all about your level of maturity. You do not value freedom and empowerment. You all depend on your victim status. Not one of you will adopt a philosophy which enables you to stand on your own two feet.

My mother raised my brother and I on a teacher's salary. We were poor the majority of my life, frequently moving to save rent money. She worked. She rose up and carried us with her. She never asked for handouts or more than what she earned. She taught me what feminism really means. Her example showed me that women are strong. I never grew up thinking anything else.

It gives me pleasure to tell you guys that your free ride is coming to an end. People all over the world, men and women, are waking up to the hypocrisy of your ways. The way you venemously attack anyone who disagrees with you. You wonder why feminism has a bad name? Your members represent a minority of the world's population, yet you act as if you have some divine purpose to fulfill. There are people who are capable of conceiving of equality without all the paranoia. There are people who do not believe women are as weak as you claim.

I had always heard the phrase "rabid feminist." I always thought these claims were exagerations made by misogynists. It seems I was wrong.

Don't feed the troll.