All the anti-women republican bills get touted as pandering to their religious base; however, could it actually be a political move designed to try to force more women to have children, in order to make them less liberal?

Reasons:
1. Having to take care of a kid makes it more burdensome and less convenient for women to be politically active and vote (women overwhelmingly lean democrat).

2. People with children/families are slightly more conservative (or at least, less radically liberal) than people who are child-free.

@1 I can't imagine what religion prohibits abortion. I know those popes don't like it, but who cares what those assholes think? And there isn't word one about abortion in that ridiculous bible they're always stuffing down our throats. This is government nanny state invasion in women's medical care, plain and simple.

Interesting that the "print" button on the Ms. Magazine Virginia-abortion-restriction story forces a pop-up ad urging people to "stand with Michele Bachmann to defund Planned Parenthood," on the way to a "printer-friendly page."

Organizations like Ms. that have at least a presumed political stance on such issues maybe shouldn't cede control over this aspect of their Web content by farming out print functionality to third parties.

Well, they say that there's no immediate danger to anyone as a result of the sodium hydroxide spill. I just hope...it's not a lye.
YEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

@3

Many webpages sell their ad content to contractors, which handle many different accounts. So they don't have much control over who is doing the advertising. It's quite amusing to see a liberal blog beg people not to turn on their ad-blocking software and then see "Is Obama a Nazi Socialist?" ads on the side.

@ Venomlash:
http://www.punpunpun.com/

Apparently, there was a big tantrum of leftist anarchist depravity going on last night.

Urgutha, you have good points, but I don't know if it's accurate to say that people who have kids are slightly less liberal, as much as they're just worn out and living in their little child bubble...I know that was the case for me, when you're in survival mode with toddlers, it's pretty easy to disengage from the larger world. The more kids you have, the longer that state lasts. And keeping women barefoot and pregnant has certainly worked wonders for maintaining male superiority over the years, from putting midwives to death as "witches" in the dark ages, to women in developing countries who have no access to birth control. Looking after kids definitely cuts down on your voting and protesting hours....

Vince...really? You're obviously not hanging out with enough fundie nutjobs: I know extended family members who vote on one single issue every time: They will only vote for candidates who are anti-choice, doesn't matter what their stand is on any other issue. (Jesus doesn't say anything about gays, either, so don't be getting all "logical" here, or anything...)

@6: Anarchism is leftist the same way that Nazism is rightist. Sure, they're technically on that end of the spectrum, but they're incredibly far removed from the mainstream.
Apparently, there was a big tantrum of rightist Nazi depravity going on a week ago.

@5, agree. Just pointing out that Ms. and many other sites use JavaScript under their PRINT buttons to redirect the content text to a third party like Irides, Clickability, Kodak, etc. which then plugs in their own paid-for ads based on keywords in the requested text (and/or tracking info previously gleaned from the viewerperson), formats a whole new page in a new window or tab, and presents it to the viewerperson. If, on the other hand, they use cascading style sheets to serve up reduced-visual-garbage print pages following a keyboard- or menu-selected print command, they at least have the possibility of controlling what ads might be included since it's all coming from their own servers and they have hammered out whatever policy they want with their advertisers.

That's based on my fuzzy understanding, anyway. Maybe a Web geek or six can correct my explanation/terminology.

When saving Web pages, I will often do a keyboard or menu print command even if there's a big blinking PRINT button on the page just to see if I like the formatting better. Often I do, but sometimes it's just total garbage with a long vertical sequence of irrelevant links either before or after the info I want.

I'm really curious who's funding the "Repeal Obama?" banner ads that show up behind my other browser windows a couple of times a day no matter what sites I visit, even though I have a pop-up blocker on. They're almost as plentiful as the NetFlix ones.

@7 Canuck, I know the fundie boneheads and Catholic papists don't like it, but my point is, if you don't like it, don't get one. These are the same fools that rail against government assistance to any poor people but are always trying to force them to have more children. To make government follow such backasswards policies is disaster in the making. And there simply are not any logical Republicans left. They don't get elected.

@4, quite tardily,

A man who could make so vile a pun would not scruple to pick a pocket.
                    —John Dennis (1657-1734)

Many, many fuzzy-tiger points to you, sir.

I agree with everything you say about religion, Vince, but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between what's actually in the bible, and what they use to justify their bigotry...sad.

Canuck,

Christians by and large believe that the God head is three in one, it is a pretty standard ontological belief. And, that the third member of the trinity, often called the HS, is sought for interpretation, prayer... That may be a huge part of the disconnect, meaning if one can get others to believe that the HS has led them to do something, change how scripture is interpreted, add to scripture... Those who seek to be devout followers will swallow. An anecdotal example would be a female pastor that I used to engage with on a frequent basis telling us that, "Paul was wrong about women, but right about gays." If you know the book of 1 Timothy (specifically chapter 2) literal interpretation of it at its present English interpretation states women are to be silent and submissive, and not to be teaching over men. (I'll acknowledge that many scholars doubt that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, but that is a different topic.) But, hopefully you see my point. Another example would be divorce, anecdotally I know individuals who sincerely believe that they have been granted permission to divorce from God via the HS. Hence, they feel no hypocrisy in ignoring the scriptures that condemn divorce and that state that one becomes an adulterer if they remarry (Matthew 19:8-9; Luke 16:18). Perhaps, this explains why there are so many denominational differences and individual interpretations? I don't know, but I find it fascinating... the ability to justify... the ability to interpret or to contradict, even dismiss... the requirement to defend... the ability to suspend critical thought or silence it into compliance... the ability to inspire (both in a positive and a negative sense). Anyway, I hope that helps you see, from my experience, as to why interpreting/following scripture isn't this clear or necessarily rational thing... or one could argue as to how blindness to hypocrisy with regard to scripture can occur... or how there can be so many different views/interpretations.

Take care.

Oh, I agree, Kim, I think for anyone who reads the Bible, there has to be a certain amount of rationalization, and you're right that it's interesting what some people will justify (persecution of gays) vs. attending "all you can eat shrimp night" at Red Lobster...and although I don't claim to have more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible, the lessons Jesus taught seem so at odds with the way certain congregations act toward people in their community, and the larger world. It just seems painfully obvious that once you start applying human fallibility to anything, you'll end up with endless variations, endless interpretations, and it is so easy to "tweak" the reading to one's own prejudices (and to, I suppose, think "the holy spirit is leading me to this answer.") I just find it interesting that someone like me, for instance, who has a very limited knowledge of the Bible, got a take away message that (the NT, anyway) is basically a blueprint for how to be a good person, and that it's pretty clear about the challenges in being a good person if you judge others, don't love people as a default setting, and seek to acquire wealth over helping others...I guess I react to the reading comprehension fail, as I see it. I just don't think that a lot of fundamentalists are truly absorbing the message of the NT, they're getting hung up on details in the OT that were really only relevant thousands of years ago....and agree 100% that rational thought does a poor job of trying to explain a person's faith. Sigh.

Maybe, it is more about being part of the community than it is the actual content of the Bible, Canuck. Many people are part of things because it is familiar and part of their families tradition. Others join because they like the fellowship... the pastor... children's programs... in house coffee bar. And, both those examples there is a whole view of the Bible as somthing to be accepted in its entirety as it is found that serves as an agreement for 'belonging'. It would make it easier to understand as to how you find a message of becoming a generous, just, and contributing society as an individual reader, especially if you weren't seeking to belong or be a member. Maybe, the importance of being in the community puts a "school of thought" emphasis upon scripture so that the community can recognize who belongs and explain the world's response (acceptance or rejection) of them instead of being a guide to being a compassionate and just society that through community lives at peace, and everyone has their daily bread and forgiveness of debts both financial and grace to soften the effects of what the study of physics teaches "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or Newton's Third Law.