RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Here's an example of "What's good for goose....


Women Fight Back: Ohio Bill Makes Erectile Dysfunction Her Business

By: Sarah Jones


You want to regulate our ovaries, uteri and order us to carry state-mandated children? Well, fine. We want to regulate your erectile dysfunction.

That’s the message of state Democratic Senator Nina Turner’s erectile dysfunction bill in Ohio (SB307). The bill is meant to inflict the same sort of humiliation and violation of privacy on men as mostly male legislators are inflicting upon women across the country, but is wisely being sold under the exact same disingenuous “concern” as Republicans sell their attempts to control women’s wombs.

Turner sweetly pointed out, “I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

SB 307 requires that:

(A) No person other than a physician shall issue to a patient a prescription for a drug intended to treat symptoms of erectile dysfunction.
(B) Prior to issuing a prescription for a drug intended to treat symptoms of erectile dysfunction, a physician shall do all of the following:
(1) Obtain from the patient a notarized affidavit in which at least one of the patient’s sexual partners certifies that the patient has experienced symptoms of erectile dysfunction in the ninety days preceding the date on the affidavit;
(2) Refer the patient to a sexual therapist approved by the state medical board for an assessment of the possible causes of the patient’s symptoms of erectile dysfunction and obtain a written report in which the therapist concludes that the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions;
(3) Conduct a cardiac stress test and obtain a result, described in writing, indicating that the patient’s cardiac health is compatible with sexual activity;
(4) Notify the patient in writing of the potential risks and complications associated with taking drugs intended to treat erectile dysfunction and obtain the patient’s signature on a form acknowledging the patient’s receipt of the notification;
(5) Declare in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the drug the physician is prescribing is necessary to treat the patient’s symptoms of erectile dysfunction and attach to the declaration a statement that clearly describes the physician’s medical rationale for issuing the prescription;
(6) Place all documents described in divisions (B)(1) to (5) of this section in the patient’s medical record and retain the documents as part of that record for not less than seven years.



These steps are all sound medical suggestions that are often overlooked out of courtesy to a man’s ego and in deference to his privacy.

Sen. Turner defended her bill as standing up for men’s health, “Even the FDA recommends that doctors make sure that assessments are taken that target the nature of the symptoms, whether it’s physical or psychological. I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

The take away is that Senator Turner is going to use legislation to “protect men’s health”, just as Republicans are using legislation to control women under the auspices of protecting health.

There’s nothing like a first hand experience of governmental overreach punishing citizens for things they have no control over and controlling their private organs to help Americans decide that the Republican war on women must stop immediately. Senator Turner is reminding lawmakers that they are setting a precedent that can be applied both ways.



We’re only doing it because “we care”, cried the white men legislating themselves into control over every American woman’s body. Guess what, boys? This ain’t the 1950s and you will pay a price for the relentless war on women. See state Senators Turner and Davis for starters.

We’re mad and we’re not going to take it anymore. And, oh, hey, please proceed because we’re just getting warmed up.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

It's not the womb anybody cares about, it's about a living human being that no one seems to care about. It's a baby that is in question. Nobody gives a rats ass what a woman does with her womb or any other part of her body it's what's being done to that baby's body that is in question. Why do you not seem to understand such a simple concept.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

The simple concept that you have no right to tell a pregnant women she must carry the child to term. It is just that simple or can't you understand that? It is none of your business, period. Mind your life and keep your nose out of others.

I think an ultrasound should be require the lawmaker missed that part.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

No, I can't understand that. What you're telling me is that you simply don't believe that unborn baby is a human being and that the innocent unborn child hasn't the right to be protected and no I do not understand how anyone can take that stand.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

No, I am saying it is absolutely none of your business. That's what I am saying.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

So is it anybody's business if a woman should decide to take the life of her two year old? BTW what's up with the name calling, I thought you liberals were above that sort of thing.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Not the same thing. With thought patterns such as yours you must believe that gay marriage will lead to sex with animals.

I would say that is only name-calling when it is inaccurate otherwise it is a description:


Pious:
a : marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship
b : marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds — Charles Reade>

A prig /&#712;pr&#618;&#609;/, sometimes spelled prigg, is a person who shows an inordinately zealous approach to matters of form and propriety – especially where the prig has the ability to show superior knowledge to those who do not know the protocol. They see little need to consider the feelings or intentions of others, relying instead on established order and rigid rules to resolve all questions.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Well then you tell me when life begins or better yet when YOU believe a life becomes worth protecting. You're snotty assed remarks really don't add much to the conversation but you feel free to continue to make an ass of yourself as I find it most entertaining. :thumbup:

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Pious:
a : marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship
b : marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds — Charles Reade>

A prig /&#712;pr&#618;&#609;/, sometimes spelled prigg, is a person who shows an inordinately zealous approach to matters of form and propriety – especially where the prig has the ability to show superior knowledge to those who do not know the protocol. They see little need to consider the feelings or intentions of others, relying instead on established order and rigid rules to resolve all questions.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Okay I'm a pious prig, thank you. Are you going to answer my question?

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Getting back to the point...if the any government decides to police the reproduction processes of women under the equal protection clause men should be required to submit to the very same scrutiny. Think about that the next you fill your prescription.

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

It is quite astonishing progressive mentality defines a child as unwanted tissue. No more than a disposable life form not worthy of protection. Only a extremely self absorbed individual or populace would champion a woman's right to murder a human being. Murdering a child is at this point in time a woman's cherished & fiercely guarded protected right. To say or think that concerned humans have no right to protect children from their hosts is a very, very sick concept...

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

I am not defining it as anything. I am simply stating it is none of your business, none of my business, none of anyone's business but the people directly involved in the situation. You're obsessed with an unborn infant. I am not. Millions of abortions are performed for medical reasons every year. Those reasons include but are not limited to birth defects and other medical issues with the fetus. If a couple finds that their as of yet unborn child will arrive severe health issues you would force them to carry that child to term? It is none of your business.

I would not personally want to terminate a pregnancy if I was the father. Just because that is my opinion gives me absolutely no right to impose my opinion on someone else. I understand you feel you need to fill your life with some purpose or at least feel like you are contributing. I have suggestion, mind your own business and go and do volunteer work at a children's shelter. Oh, wait that would require you actually DO something other than pray which is really doing nothing.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

What the hell are you talking about, you try and impose your opinion on this site continuously. Are you going to answer my question or just continue expressing your anger toward anyone who should happen to disagree with your position?

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

Yes it is my business. I am championing the undefended right of the child. You may feel no attachment to a child's protection or well being. That is your prerogative. You would turn your back on the undefended. That is a illustration of character and one I could never, ever, ever duplicate...