true indeed

and there's plenty of places to read reviews of the pamphlet, so it's your fault if it didn't match your expectations.

Bucky wrote:my take it that it's a pamphlet designed FOR WOMEN. That's why there's no men's stuff in there. If you're gonna argue there should also be a men's pamphlet, fine.

yeah this is a good idea

fine

I like when Bucky and Trent Steele post and remind me that I'm not crazy.

pacino wrote:

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

Wait, are you suggesting that health insurance or public funds should be used for transportation to the abortion clinic, and lost wages because someone was getting an abortion? That's... interesting.

td11 wrote:also this board/thread is decidedly NOT a liberal bubble. at best it's centrist. jeff was fucking retarded (sorry plz allow it this one time)

It's not a liberal bubble (thanks to jerseyhoya constantly calling people on their crap... he's posted like 5% of the total posts on ths board, so if we're weightng the board's leanings by post count, he's enough to pull it back closer to the center), but the majority of people on here are liberal. And I'll point out that it's conservatives and liberals who both agree that you and pac are outside the mainstream on this. That you are surprised and indignant at the response that pac's post has generated suggests more about you and your politics than the average leanings of the board.

td11 wrote:also this board/thread is decidedly NOT a liberal bubble. at best it's centrist. jeff was fucking retarded (sorry plz allow it this one time)

This is the angriest I've ever seen TD. I'm totally tearing up.

(Not to belittle the gravity of the argument or anything)

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

Wait, are you suggesting that health insurance or public funds should be used for transportation to the abortion clinic, and lost wages because someone was getting an abortion? That's... interesting.

Uhm im talking about covering abortion since it costs people a ton of money and doesnt have to.

i guess what i was upset about was what i perceived as a glib dismissal of a very valid point that pac was making. i'm not upset that they are trying to teach women a useful thing. i'm upset that there is a need to do so and that when it is suggested that maybe men should educate themselves more on what is considered rape, the reaction is "it's human nature." that doesn't mean you don't do something about it.

i'm neither surprised nor indignant, but carry on about mainstream and stuff because that really matters to me

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

Wait, are you suggesting that health insurance or public funds should be used for transportation to the abortion clinic, and lost wages because someone was getting an abortion? That's... interesting.

generally, transportation costs for medical procedures are among your qualifying federal income tax deductions. You could look it up.

Medical leave on the other hand you're pretty much on your own, though it's a little harder to fire someone for taking it nowadays.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

Wait, are you suggesting that health insurance or public funds should be used for transportation to the abortion clinic, and lost wages because someone was getting an abortion? That's... interesting.

pacino i'm sure can say whatever it was he was suggesting. But the victory of the anti-reproductive rights lobby is that they have made abortion more costly, harder to obtain and less safe. Clearly covering it like any other medical procedure would helps mitigate all of these things, reducing travel expenses, childcare needs , time off work, etc.

I realize you recognize this and are just trolling anyway, but sometimes I still get sucked in.

td11 wrote:i guess what i was upset about was what i perceived as a glib dismissal of a very valid point that pac was making. i'm not upset that they are trying to teach women a useful thing. i'm upset that there is a need to do so and that when it is suggested that maybe men should educate themselves more on what is considered rape, the reaction is "it's human nature." that doesn't mean you don't do something about it.

i'm neither surprised nor indignant, but carry on about mainstream and stuff because that really matters to me

I'm with you in spirit. I'm a runner, and when I went to and then worked at an urban college campus, security would regularly issue "advisories" to female runners that they should confine themselves to the running track, and run in pairs, and preferably during daylight hours, with the implication that if you didn't follow these suggestions, well, whatever happened was your own damn fault. and they seemed perfectly satisfied with this state of affairs, rather than working toward an atmosphere where women could actually function with all the rights of human beings, aware of the dangers, yes, but not subject to greater restrictions than men.

But I still think pac was over-heatedly reacting to a pamphlet that I'm pretty sure was just one piece of of a campaign to protect women on the base, which is still a good goal to strive for.

drsmooth wrote:
generally, transportation costs for medical procedures are among your qualifying federal income tax deductions. You could look it up.

yeah, but medical costs aren't deductible until they reach 10% of your AGI.

Bucky wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
generally, transportation costs for medical procedures are among your qualifying federal income tax deductions. You could look it up.

yeah, but medical costs aren't deductible until they reach 10% of your AGI.

so you're saying they ARE deductible

Obviously no one really cares about this, but further proof this morning that it was more important to conceal the truth about how four Americans were left to die than that four Americans were left to die: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (from ABC News)

karn wrote:Obviously no one really cares about this, but further proof this morning that it was more important to conceal the truth about how four Americans were left to die than that four Americans were left to die: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (from ABC News)

I guess this time it's finally time for the truth about people killed in embassy attacks to come out, after so many situations over the years in which not many people gave a crap about the truth about those people killed in embassy attacks.

It's good you're paying attention to news these days. However, I feel obliged to point out that shiny new righteousness is as unpersuasive as most other forms of it

Ha, yes, well that is quite true. But righteousness however shiny, new, old, shit-smeared or any other adjective - if in the name of true righteousness and not self-interest - is still a far more honorable hand to play than that of the deceitful or iniquitous one, no?

swishnicholson wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

Wait, are you suggesting that health insurance or public funds should be used for transportation to the abortion clinic, and lost wages because someone was getting an abortion? That's... interesting.

pacino i'm sure can say whatever it was he was suggesting. But the victory of the anti-reproductive rights lobby is that they have made abortion more costly, harder to obtain and less safe. Clearly covering it like any other medical procedure would helps mitigate all of these things, reducing travel expenses, childcare needs , time off work, etc.

I realize you recognize this and are just trolling anyway, but sometimes I still get sucked in.

I couldn't figure out why he selected that part of the article to quote. He says "it's a legal procedure. cover it," after quoting all of the other costs like travel expenses and childcare needs. I was hoping this was not the case, which is why I didnt rush to judge him on it.

I can't always tell which positions pacino/td11 actually hold, since they post some stuff that's occasionally out there. On this issue, I'm guessing that if pacino was in charge, he would support a law that subsidized low-income people's transportation to reach medical services.

we already do that for the elderly and disabled

in a post discussing hte costs of abortion, i said that it was a legal procedure. so cover it. that's my view. i fail to see why we shouldnt spend public dollars on abortion, to be quite frank, and now the march to restricting privately procured insurance from covering it is just crazy.