Wait ... wait.... You seriously ... seriously believe that women will be worse off if Obama is president than if Romney is president? You can't be serious. What kind of disconnect with reality do you need to believe that?
...and it will be better with a re-implementation of the supply-side garbage that's been kicking us in the balls the last decade. Right. So, you acknowledge that on issues that pertain to women specifically that Obama is a better choice than Romney? You haven't mentioned that ... you changed away from the thread's subject.
the economy doesn't pertain to women? do tell. but, i'll humor you: how do you think teh once will be "better for women?"
i've lost the thread (of your thought process.) 1. reducing women to their lady part is offensive, to both women and men. 2. women, like men, vote on a host of issues, not just those associate with their "lady parts." 3. "reproductive rights" is a bizarre term. no one seeks to limit one's "right" to reproduce. 4. to the extent #3 above refers to "birth control" no one seeks to limit "access" to birth control 5. if "access to birth control" means abortion, that's ****ed up 6. if forcing religious organisations to pay $18k/year for Final's birth control, that's equally ****ed up. 7. finals can buy condoms for $.31/erection. if she only had sex (or sex with an erection capable human) once per day, that's still less than $120/year (assuming she buys the pleasure pack.)
basso if you could go back in time and had 200% more brain cells and became an OBGYN....would you abort Hitler.
