Gloria Purvis

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Gloria Purvis
16
Sat, 03-31-2012 - 8:09am

 

 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 9:12pm

It bothers me that those who oppose choice to the extent they also oppose measures to increase availability of contraception try to couch it in terms of being pro-women. It isn't. Pro-choice means support for full range of options, not those opposed.

One side is anti-options, anti-availability for those of lesser means. Apparently some reshaping of choice becomes if you are of means you get options, if not, too bad, so sad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 5:42pm
I know which side *I* consider to be anti-women!
Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 2:51pm
I like what she had to say.. Yes! :-)

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 2:50pm

I really don't understand how the making minimum health care coverage requirements as recommended by the Institute of Medicine is intrusive and freedom limiting, but transvaginal ultrasound laws by state legislators are just fine.

Which side is anti-women?

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 2:49pm

The video was about the mandate... I said what I thought about healthcare as a whole already, And the only comparison b/w offering up heatlhcare to everybody but not requiring everybody to pay for it - and - say, auto insurance is if you neglect to pay for a policy but still drive a car. That becomes a cost we all pay for when you're ticketed for speeding, when you're in a wreck and don't pay for that too.

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 12:42pm

And the other side is, let's keep government in my pants because I can't make these decisions that surround sex by myself, Victim, Wahh.. I do think society has created a lot of its own problems, I am whole so I don't know what you're asking there, Nobody is telling you how you should live. But let's create all these new laws to protect us.... Phooey!

Government wouldn't be in your pants, because it isn't telling you to use anything. It's making sure the *option* is there for you.

We need to cover everyone for health insurance. How do we do this? Please offer up your ideas, because not to do so is to favour the 'let them die' approach, or what I call Repubnocare.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2010
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 12:31pm

Someone who's words are powerful, as you put it, would make me interested in what she was saying and see her side of what she is discussing, even if I disagree with her.

“Clearly," said Arthur,"you're an idiot- but you're our kind of idiot. Come on.” 
― Markus ZusakThe Book Thief

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 10:11am
<>

How is the government in your pants now? What exactly is the government telling you that you can or cannot do with your own body?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 10:10am
That's because you agree with her. ;-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 04-01-2012 - 9:44am
The reason we need these "new laws to protect us" is because laws are being passed to restrict access to reproductive care. If you're not familiar with the latest nonsense in Arizona, there was almost enough support in the legislature to require women to tell their employers what they why they were using birth control pills. Michell Duggar (a profoundly uninformed person if ever there was one) thinks that overpopulation is "a lie". She and her kind need to take basic math, learn about the dangers of exponential population growth...and stop trying to prevent the rest of us from making decisions about our own bodies.

Pages