Protest Trump Inauguration And Women's March At Us Embassy

[mmoon]

Can someone tell me which rights women don't have this week that they did have last week before Trump was sworn into office? If they think they are oppressed, they should try to do these protests where they are seriously oppressed, like Saudi Arabia or the likes of.

In answer to your question...this one could even affect women in Argentina!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910?

 

[camberiu]

Abortions are illegal in Argentina and in pretty much all of South America. So I don't see how his decree could affect women in Argentina.

 

[camberiu]

And while we're on the topic of women reacting to a politico defaming womens status in society........... where were all these protesters when Slick Willy Clinton was getting his knob pollished by an intern?

What I found is that in politics, the act itself does not matter nearly as much as who carries it out. Is objectifying women bad? Well, it depends mostly on the political affiliation of the culprit. Is blowing up children with drones bad? Same answer.
Most political debate is shaped by "which side you are on", instead of principles. So, principles end up being embraced or dropped depending on what is convenient for each side.

 

[Gringoboy]

aka a French Polish.
Ask Cynthia Payne.

 

[Gringoboy]

What I found is that in politics, the act itself does not matter nearly as much as who carries it out. Is objectifying women bad? Well, it depends mostly on the political affiliation of the culprit. Is blowing up children with drones bad? Same answer.
Most political debate is shaped by "which side you are on", instead of principles. So, principles end up being embraced or dropped depending on what is convenient for each side.

He's in good company. I'm sure the bloke in the shades was Silvio Berlusconi. How the hell did he get invited to the inauguration from hell? His friend Bill probably.

 

[TomAtAlki]

It seems that the womans march was aimed squarely at Trump and things he said... made himself look like an ass, but wasn't that from 14 years ago? But that couldn't be the only reason to show up on inauguration day could it?
And while we're on the topic of women reacting to a politico defaming womens status in society........... where were all these protesters when Slick Willy Clinton was getting his knob pollished by an intern?

He was impeached. Bill Clinton's wrongs does not excuse Trumps wrongs. They are both pigs.

T/

 

[Ries]

Trump apologists seem obsessed with the past- 20 years ago, or 2.
The past is gone, dude.
No one is contesting that Hillary lost, and, most likely, will gracefully fade from politics.

The protests against Trump are about the future, and the hope that we will have one.

 

[mmoon]

Abortions are illegal in Argentina and in pretty much all of South America. So I don't see how his decree could affect women in Argentina.

So since you didn't read the article, here's the gist of it, directly quoted:

"Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions."

Someone posted a question asking how Trump has done anything so far that affects women. Clearly, this order affects women worldwide, specifically poor, uneducated women, who are typically the ones who don't have access to any reproductive health services, not limited to abortion. Does it really seem like a good idea to deny these kinds of services and information (not just abortion) to women who likely can't afford to have unlimited children?

Finally, abortion may be technically illegal in Argentina and many countries across South America, but all that means is that women with access to money are able to access abortion providers (whether illegal or across borders where it is legal) and poor women are stuck.

Seems to me like worldwide access to family planning information and contraception for both wealthy and poor women is a human right and should not be signed away at the stroke of a pen by a male billionaire with five kids by three different women.

 

[mmoon]

And if there is any doubt that this new administration plans to crack down on freedom of the press and the rights of journalists when they are exposing the truth about what is going on...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/23/two-journalists-trump-inauguration-protests-felony-riot-charges-evan-engel-alex-rubinstein?CMP=fb_gu

Despite new gag orders, there is at least one rogue tweeter at the NPS telling the truth about climate change...

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/national-park-service-tweets-about-climate-change-over-trump.html

Back to the OP, here is why peaceful protest is effective and essential...to make our voices heard and protect our hard-won, constitutionally-protected rights.

 

[camberiu]

So since you didn't read the article, here's the gist of it, directly quoted:

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.None of that money is spent on performing abortions."

Argentina has one of the best public health care system in the hemisphere (and they often brag about it). Also, birth rates are currently at 2.2 children per couple. That is right at replacement level. So I am very skeptical that this budget cut has any meaningful impact on family planning and contraception in Argentina. But if you have evidence of the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Seems to me like worldwide access to family planning information and contraception for both wealthy and poor women is a human right and should not be signed away at the stroke of a pen by a male billionaire with five kids by three different women.

I think we both agree that access to family planning and contraception is a right. But I don't think it is the American's taxpayer responsibility to provide family planning and contraceptives to the rest of the world. As an American tax payer, it would be weird to me to witness American women in Argentina and Argentine women protesting because American tax payers are no longer paying for their family planning needs (which I don't think is the case in Argentina). But if it is, they should go protest in front of the Casa Rosada for contraceptives instead, specially since Argentine taxes are no joke.