Congratulations, you're now a "host."
Where do they find these people.
A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the
right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote
in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views. [...]
"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent
you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a
child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill
it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't
want it."
Martin is a personhood advocate, meaning the "host" loses her personhood
the minute the sperm and the egg hook up. Sucks to be you, host.
If you're in Virginia, Martin is one of the people in charge of your
laws, which is (directly) why Virginia dreams up things like mandatory
ultrasound laws and (indirectly) a partial explanation for why Ken
Cuccinelli was not seen, among Virginia Republicans, as hopelessly nuts.
We got rid of one Cuccinelli, but they've got spares. They practically
clone the bastards.
The subject of the latest
debunked Obamacare horror story is finally talking, and of course it's to
Fox News.
Julie Boonstra is a Michigan resident with leukemia, and she appeared
in an Americans For Prosperity ad against Democratic Senate candidate
Rep. Gary Peters, saying that Obamacare made her cancer treatment
unaffordable because of out of pocket spending. Subsequent fact
checking, though, found that her monthly premium payments were
essentially cut in half, and the limits the law imposes on out of pocket
expenses means that at worse, she'd break even between those costs and
her premium saving. The ad also implied she lost access to her doctor,
though fact checking determined that her doctor is included in the plan
she picked on the exchange.
So with no real basis to the story she presented in the ad, how does
Boonstra respond? The only way she can, the way Republicans always go,
playing the victim.
"They're not scaring me. Cancer scares me," she said. "I battle cancer every day. They're not going to intimidate me." [...]
"Under my old policy, I knew what I could afford every single month
because I wasn't hit with extra charges. Now I don't know what I have to
pay month to month," she said. "Leukemia tests are extremely
expensive."
Just to set the record straight, pointing out factual inconsistencies is
not intimidation. No one is saying that Boonstra isn't experiencing
real angst over having to change health insurance in the middle of her
fight with cancer. No one is diminishing her fight with cancer, they're
just pointing out some basic truths which show that her story just
doesn't add up.
And as Brian Beutler
points out,
if the Koch brothers achieved what they're trying to with this and
other ads—repeal—then she would really become a victim. The protections
she now has under this law—to never be kicked off her health insurance
plan, to never have to worry about having health coverage because of her
leukemia, having her annual out of pocket expenses limited, and never
having to worry about reaching an annual or lifetime cap where her
coverage is just cut off—would be gone if the campaign she's
participating in succeeds. Which is, yes, insane.
If Boonstra is a victim, she's the willing victim of the Koch
brothers and AFP who would ultimately throw her to the wolves. But if
she hates the law that much, fine, whatever. What she's doing, though,
jeopardizes every other cancer patient in the nation.