Liss has the details.
A person identifying as a woman and/or having a uterus shall retain all of the full, basic, and fundamental rights of a US citizen as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person’s life, including but not limited to access to life-saving or life-improving healthcare, and/or medicines and procedures deemed necessary or beneficial by a medical professional and/or by the person having the uterus, procurement of which shall not by denied in and of itself by the presence of a uterus. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person’s liberty, including but not limited to autonomy over hir own body and the ability to make decisions regarding hir own healthcare. Congress and the States shall make no law that interferes with a person’s pursuit of happiness, including but not limited to access to a full spectrum of reproductive options, freedom from forcible reproduction, and the ability to make decisions regarding family planning and family resources.
Please sign the petition in support of the Personhood Amendment here. Once it has 1,000 signatures, it will be delivered to Senators Patty Murray (WA), Al Franken (MN), and Kristen Gillibrand (NY) with a request to introduce the proposed amendment into the legislative session.
Um…..
I didn’t know the Declaration of Independence guaranteed anything.
Now, I recall that ‘our Creator’ was responsible for certain rights, listed in said declaration. Too bad you lefties are all separation-of-church-and-state-minded these days. A little belief in religion might help you when you are relying on something provided by your Creator, or at least so says the parchment. God’s always useful to cry out to when in the throes of orgasm and when you need to point out that he gave you stuff. Other times, I guess it’s a little inconvenient that the stuff you had given to you might have come from a deity you don’t think exists.
So do you really have that stuff? Those rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and contraception paid for by someone else, I mean.
Good luck with that Amendment thingie.
does that mean they get to sign up for selective service when they turn 18?
“contraception paid for by someone else”
What, you think you pay for it? How much do you think you fucking pay?
@2
Well, if that Fluke woman is to be believed, $3K per year in some cases. If Pelosi is to be believed, 98% of Catholic women use contraception. So, up to $3K per year per person times up to 90% of women of child-bearing age. Sounds like a lot for something that is supposed to be ‘free’.
Or, maybe giving up a Starbucks latte and picking up a 3-pack of Trojans instead isn’t too much to ask young adults to do.
The student, Sandra Fluke, is required by Georgetown to have health care insurance. She pays over $1800 a year for health insurance through a group plan at Georgetown. That’s over $5,400 for three years. Opting out of that plan and going to a private plan could cost her over $5,000 a year, or over $15,000 for three years. She said that contraceptives could cost up to $3,000 over a three year period, not one year. The pill costs between $15 to $50 a month. An exam might cost another $250. That’s $430 to $850 a year, up to $2,550 for a three year period for this one form of contraception. Where do you get the idea that this woman gets anything for “free”?
@5
It’s not what she gets now. It’s what the left is angling for her to be able to get. All that stuff would be ‘free’ if Obama gets his way.
Don’t listen to me, though. Here’s Reuters:
Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:35pm EST
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s compromise on free birth control coverage left health insurers stuck with the bill, sparking worries over the precedent set by the new policy.
Obama on Friday made insurers responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups, aiming to placate outraged leaders of the Catholic church who oppose contraception and to defuse an election-year landmine.
Free birth control is mandated under Obama’s 2010 healthcare law. The administration has exempted houses of worship from the rule, but requires the coverage be made available to employees of religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....ON20120211
See? It’s free. Until the taxpayer picks up the eventual tab for this woman’s ability to have sex on her own terms.
Or, she could keep her inexpensive Georgetown insurance, drop $5 on a Trojan three-pack now and then, and shut the fuck up about how expensive it is to cover her own contraceptives.
And then maybe we can talk about the economy.
Does this mean that men can go visit Dr. Snip for “free”?
In the immortal words of the Ghetto Boys, “you gotta let a ho be a ho”
maybe that should obama’s 2012 campaign slogan.
Im still amazed that there are people out there who think things are “free”.
and why do the people who think things can be had for “free” always seem to vote D?
when was the last time you saw a radiologist work for free?
hmmm…..
@9
I don’t know anyone that thinks things are free. According to my health insurance company (which I really doubt is run by liberals) I get a “free” yearly physical. But, I know that I pay dearly for that physical and that my insurance company offers it without a co-pay because it helps keep their costs down.
@10
Your physical might be ‘free’ in the same way that the Dems are spinning cost savings from prevented pregnancies as covering the contraception coverage.
If your physical catches little things before they become big things there may be some cost-effectiveness.
Maybe.
@11
My insurance company doesn’t have any form of mandate to have co-pay free checkup and if you dig a little past the marketing hype they say it saves them money. The cost of the thing is just built into my monthly payments. There’s no such thing as free.
@12
We’re in full agreement on the concept of free. Someone, somewhere, pays for everything.
Why is it that the “R”‘s think you can pay for a gold plated military (costing more than the military spending of the next x countries combined) can be paid for with more tax cuts?