No wonder Republicans support Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
OK, I think I finally understand the whole abstinence-only education thing. I really do. It's not so much about morals, or religion, or anything pseudo-virtuous like that. It's just because the Republican hard-liners don't know jack shit about birth control.
As a misbegotten icon of the Idiot Right Wing movement, here's Bill O'Reilly on insurance companies covering birth control vs. Viagra:
OK, listen up. Viagra is used to help a medical condition. That’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It is a choice. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people’s choices? Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? (from thinkprogress.org)
Pregnancy isn't a medical condition? Really? Why do we have doctors who specialize in prenatal care, if pregnancy isn't a medical condition? Having sex in the first place is a choice … if an impotent dude wants to have sex, why should I have to pay for that? And need I actually point out that a lot of women are prescribed birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception?
Of course it's no surprise that Bill O'Reilly doesn't fucking get it. He doesn't get anything … LOOFAHS?! For fuck's sake! (And of course, on a strictly financial note, birth control is a FUCK of a lot cheaper than prenatal care … but maybe O'Reilly isn't so good at math either?)
So why was the beady-eyed little monkey-fucker talking about over-his-head topics like insurance in the first place? Because a few days ago, John McCain said he didn't know whether it was fair for an insurance company to cover Viagra but not birth control …
Watch him choke on the question:
John McCain probably doesn't even know how babies are made.
He doesn't remember his 2003 vote against requiring insurance coverage for birth control … and it's not an issue he's given much thought to.
Now, really, I understand that if you're asked a question about a complicated policy issue, and you haven't studied up on it, it's perfectly fair to say you're not familiar with it, and you'll get back to the reporter on that issue. But this isn't exactly middle east diplomacy here … it's a plain and simple question as to whether or not it's fair to pay for old men's boners, but not pay for their girlfriends' and wives' ability to help the old guy enjoy the boner without getting knocked up.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised though … just last year, McCain said he was "stumped" when asked whether or not condoms help prevent the spread of HIV:
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.” (from NYTimes The Caucus blog)
Yeah. This guy wants to add "Leader of the Free World" to his resumé, and he doesn't think disease prevention is as important as telling people not to fuck. He doesn't think a sexually active woman's ability to choose whether or not to have children is as important as the ability for guys to get a good enough erection to give her reason to worry. He's stumped as to whether or not condoms help prevent HIV transmission.
He doesn't fucking KNOW what his position is on birth control issues, but he's pretty sure he supports BushCo's "stick your head in the sand and hope you don't get knocked up" policy.
THIS is the man I want running the country. Fucking hell, what a statesman. Vote McCain 2008! Support four more years of Ignorance-Only Sex Education!
How do you forget where you stand on an issue like this? It's not like their discussing rocket science.
21st July 2008 at 7:32 pm | permalink |@Badsanta: You'd certainly think he could remember it, wouldn't you? Either he's an idiot, or he's as senile as Reagan was … either way, what kind of qualification for the presidency is that?
21st July 2008 at 10:08 pm | permalink |"are you smarter than a 5th grader?" mccain is clearly not — sex ed was taught in 5th grade, and i'm pretty sure we learned that condoms prevent the transmittance of sexually transmitted diseases.
21st July 2008 at 11:54 pm | permalink |What I always find so fascinating whenever I stumble upon that conversation is how he so openly admits "You've stumped me". I mean, wtf? Isn't it what you learn in Diplomacy 101 that you at least try to pretend you know what you're talking about, even though you don't have a clue? He's not just ignorant, he's totally inept at being a politician too.
Which is actually reason for hope :)
22nd July 2008 at 12:00 am | permalink |"Either he's an idiot, or he's as senile as Reagan was"
Why does it have to be either/or?
22nd July 2008 at 1:49 am | permalink |Why not both?
Hehehehe, I had no idea McPlain was THAT fucking stupid. Crap! If this moron gets to be president we’re all gonna die..
22nd July 2008 at 2:41 am | permalink |'How do you forget where you stand on an issue like this? It's not like their discussing rocket science.'
That's "they're", Einstein.
"Either he's an idiot, or he's as senile as Reagan was … either way, what kind of qualification for the presidency is that?"
As a Republican President, he's a shoo-in.
"transmittance of sexually transmitted diseases"
You should remember then, you musta done 5th grade twice. It's "transmission" ya fucktard.
"Hehehehe, I had no idea McPlain as THAT fucking stupid. Crap! If this moron gets to be president we’re all gonna die.."
Bill……you just had 8 years of Bush, yet your hubris is in full flower. After the Jesse Jackson thing and all of Sen. Obama's hoola-hooping-jiggy-jive on the 'real issues', can't you feel the big dick of deja-vu nudging at your tailpipe? Seems to me it's the American Voter who's gonna shaft us all……again.
22nd July 2008 at 8:45 am | permalink |@seastar: "sex ed was taught in 5th grade"
In my school, it actually wasn't until 7th or 8th … but either way, maybe back in the day when McCain was a boy, they didn't speak of such things? hehe … you'd think he might have figured it out after fathering children though.
@Richard: "he so openly admits 'You've stumped me'"
I'm not sure if he'd've been any better off if he'd tried to fudge his answer, given his apparent TOTAL LACK of ANY factual information about contraception …
@grimbles: "Why not both? *blink* Touché. ;-)
@bill: Yeah, I was pretty stunned too. How could anyone have lived through the late 80s and early 90s and NOT know condoms help prevent the spread of HIV?!
@Gareth: "… Einstein." Oooh. Policing the typos, you big man you.
"It's 'transmission' ya fucktard."
At least go check a dictionary before you go throwing insults around, fuckwit. The first definition of "transmittance" is "a transmission". If I were a petty, self-important nitpick like some people, I might have pointed out that "prevent transmittance" was preferrable to "prevent the transmittance" … but y'know, I prefer to actually focus on the meaning of people's comments.
The meaning of all of yours appears to be, "I pretend to be better than all of you, but really, I'm so fucking pathetically insecure I need to knock other people for stupid reasons, because I can't think of a more constructive way to make myself feel like a Big Man."
22nd July 2008 at 12:12 pm | permalink |unfortunatly for your readers, you continue to promote the fiction that the president of the united states is anything but a stuffed suit. these politicians of the "left" and the "right" are here to make us think we have "choices" in the political process. pawns do not have choices. you should be outraged at the real power brokers, not these farcial stuffed suits that everyone seems to think have real pwer in washington. McCain exists to piss you off and make you vote for the "opposition". that is all, nothing more.
22nd July 2008 at 7:24 pm | permalink |@deez thugs: I partially agree with you, but if you take a minute to look up the campaign & party contribution records on both sides, you'll note they're obeying slightly different puppet masters. Look at the foreign aid records of presidents in both parties. Look at the military spending records of both parties. Look at what sort of congressional bills presidents from each party veto. Look at stem cell research funding, and the whole "abstinence only" sex ed issue, per which party was in the White House at the time.
Sure, the President can't do everything … the US government is specifically structured that way. And yes, there are private financial interests that have major influence on both sides. But it's not as simple as you make it sound, nor is my view of the issue as simplistic as you seem to think it is.
22nd July 2008 at 8:06 pm | permalink |ok, then answer me this… what major policy of the US government has changed with the change of parties in the white house? The "right" and "left" in this country are playing for the same team. Bush only wishes he could have killed as many Iraqis as Clinton and Albright. (well, he may have by now)
22nd July 2008 at 8:14 pm | permalink |The issue with birth control and abstinence, as I learned in the 12+ years of Catholic schooling (which I'm still recovering from), has always been about making babies. I don't know how other christian denomonations rationalize the issue, but if you're Catholic then sex is ONLY for the purpose of making babies. Any other benefits (e.g. the giving and receiving of pleasure) are only added bonuses.
I'm sure it's true that many conservatives don't know anything about birth control, but continued baby production has always been the center of the issue in my mind.
A closely related issue, for conservatives, is a fear that, through a lack of population growth (on our part) and immigration, we're going to be overrun by arabs and muslims and etc.
23rd July 2008 at 3:51 am | permalink |Watching that first video I almost felt bad for him. It's sad that he couldn't just come out and say how he felt personally. It was only a tough question because he couldn't remember what opinion was given to him by his party leaders. Why would you need to look at your voting record to give an honest opinion? Your opinion should be a reflection of your heart and mind. It should flow off your tongue as easily as what you had for breakfast. Yes, I know I'm living in a fantasy world.
@alphabitch - "Look at what sort of congressional bills presidents from each party veto."
That can be deceiving as well since many congressional bills come as a package. I think you could probably get Bush to pass just about any bill if it was packaged with more war funding.
23rd July 2008 at 8:25 am | permalink |Nobody with half a grain of sense, can, at this point, think McCain knows what's going on in the world. I mean, he was talking about the non-existent Iraq-Afghanistan border the other day. Expert in foreign policy my ass. And don't even get me started on his comment that the Iraq war is "noble" (http://thewaronbullshit.com/2008/07/21/noble_cause/)
Perhaps the more interesting question is 'Why do people vote for idiots?'
23rd July 2008 at 5:27 pm | permalink |First, to stem the tide of dickheads who will immediately respond with some comment about how stupid it is for me to say that birth control shouldn't be covered under health insurance…THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING! The economics of it are incontrovertible.
Second, O'Reilly was perfectly right. The ability to "get it up" is the normal state of affairs (given reasonable age and health); the inability is a medical condition. Likewise, having sex and getting pregnant is the normal state of affairs; preventing it is your option.
Would you say that health insurance should cover the cost of your bath soap? It's the same situation…you subvert the normal (dirty, infected) state of affairs because you think it's a better choice for you for health reasons or because it helps you stay employed or because you need the social acceptance or whatever.
25th July 2008 at 5:06 am | permalink |This you send send me to read before I go to bed! Oi! Ow…… my head
25th July 2008 at 5:34 am | permalink |That second 'send' wasn't there when I clicked Submit Comment….. *suspicious eye squint*
25th July 2008 at 5:36 am | permalink |@deez thugs: "what major policy of the US government has changed with the change of parties in the white house"
Let's see:
Cutting Federal Financial Aid Pell Grant funding (keep 'em poor and ignorant, and they're not as much trouble to the powers that be).
Cutting funding to foreign aid groups who teach Third World people about condom use & AIDS prevention, birth control in general and *gasp* abortion (let the brown people die off on their own, and we don't have to worry about killing them later).
Cutting federal funding to comprehensive sex-ed programs in US schools (because you're not supposed to have sex before marriage anyhow, so what do you need birth control for?).
The Patriot Act, Iraq & Afghanistan wars, FISA, and all that other "fuck your civil liberties, let's go get us some oil" bullshit.
The No Child Left Behind Act (which wreaks havoc on small rural schools, and special ed programs).
Spending on social services (up under Dem administrations, down under Repubs).
Ending Federal subsidies of birth control for college health clinics (because y'know, if you're against abortion, the BEST thing to do is make it harder for young women to get birth control!).
I could go on … but I suppose if you're not poor, not a woman, a low-income teen hoping to go to college, or anyone living in the Third World, only #4 actually counts?
@Jonathan Schnapp: "… if you're Catholic then sex is ONLY for the purpose of making babies."
Oh sure, they're all about "saving sex for marriage" and all that shit … and why let reality get in the way of imposing your religious views on women who don't share them?
"…through a lack of population growth (on our part) and immigration, we're going to be overrun by arabs and muslims and etc"
ZOMG!!1! Actually, I think it's the Mexicans most people are worried about … ;-)
@Rick: "Why would you need to look at your voting record to give an honest opinion? Your opinion should be a reflection of your heart and mind. It should flow off your tongue as easily as what you had for breakfast"
EXACTLY!!! GODDAMN EXACTLY! Not only that, but saying you're not informed enough about birth control?! Saying you're "stumped" by whether or not condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS?! Do we want a president who's apparently been living under a fucking ROCK for the last 20 years?
"I think you could probably get Bush to pass just about any bill if it was packaged with more war funding"
Not if it included federal funding for comprehensive sex-ed, birth control for low income women, anything pro-abortion, or allowing new stem-cell lines to be developed. Fuck no. He'll veto the fucker, and then accuse the Democrats of stalling the war funding while our boys are running out of ammo or something.
@Kavan Wolfe: "… [McCain] was talking about the non-existent Iraq-Afghanistan border the other day"
Yeah, I just can't help but think that although the average American is geographically retarded, you really ought to study up on things like that if you're going to run for national office.
"'Why do people vote for idiots?"
I think HL Mencken said it best … I'm reposting his essay in a minute. ;-)
@Chaz: "… O'Reilly was perfectly right. The ability to "get it up" is the normal state of affairs (given reasonable age and health); the inability is a medical condition. Likewise, having sex and getting pregnant is the normal state of affairs; preventing it is your option. [...] Would you say that health insurance should cover the cost of your bath soap"
OK … prescribing Viagra to men in their 20s and 30s? Sure. But do you think it's a coincidence that Bob fucking Dole was their first big, famous spokesman? And can you imagine the uproar if the gov't decided that insurance companies shouldn't prescribe Viagra to anyone over the age of 50, because impotence is "normal" at that age?
Besides, he didn't say that pregnancy was abnormal, he said "birth control is not a medical condition". No, it's not. Viagra isn't a medical condition either. They are both prescription medications to treat/prevent medical conditions. And impotence is not a life-threatening medical condition. It doesn't even shorten your lifespan. Pregnancy, on the other hand, can do both.
@The Sister: "This you send send me to read before I go to bed!"
25th July 2008 at 4:14 pm | permalink |I'm evil like that, what can I say? ;-)
@alphabitch: Clinton killed *almost* as many brown folks in Iraq through sanctions as Bush through military action. Really - there is no policy difference when it comes to the results.
25th July 2008 at 4:18 pm | permalink |@deez thugs: Out of EVERYTHING I said there, all you can come up with is Clinton & Bush might have the same Iraqi body count (I guess the US soldiers Bush has killed don't count … nor does Afghanistan)?
I'll consider my point proven then.
Like I said, if you're not poor, not a woman, and don't live in the Third World, maybe you just don't think the rest of it matters.
25th July 2008 at 5:04 pm | permalink |Personally I support abstinance only sex-ed for Republicans and Fundamental Christians too. (But only if they stay educated!!)
After all we certainly wouldn't want them to breed.
29th July 2008 at 6:35 pm | permalink |@Ian: I think that's part of the problem … they apparently don't stick to it. ;-)
30th July 2008 at 11:13 am | permalink |