Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Got Insurance? Alternate Ad

Thanks Obama-Care Cartoon

 

A.F.Branco Political Cartoon: Got Insurance? Alternate Ad, because this campaign needs some truth in advertising.

                    
  • Herbie Hind

    So the guy got oral herpes from a lady because she took birth control? How did she get birth control if the website wasn’t accessible? Why couldn’t he tell she had oral herpes before? All he had to do was kiss her in order to get oral herpes – so birth control is actually irrelevant here. So the condom broke because she was on birth control? Birth control would actually prevent the #gotpregnant. I really think you have very little understanding of how biology and reality work.

    • afbranco
      • Pizza Eater

        It is funny how they get mad at you but not the creators of the real ad that really makes the woman look like a slut. Could that be because it was created by a liberal and they never have a beef with their own kind.

        • dnl2002

          If that woman chooses to enter into a short-time sexual relationship with another consenting adult, it’s folks like you that label her a slut…not usually the “libs.” (Although as an aside, I find it’s not really helpful to use broad generalizations about what a group thinks. I’m at least cognizant of the fact that not all the members of a political party think and act in unison, and that sometimes good ideas can come from people of different ideologies.)

          Personally, I thought the sexually charged ads that were made in Colorado were tacky, but they didn’t denigrate an entire gender, and they don’t use imagery and words that contradict themselves and logic. If you’d take your hater glasses off for just a minute, and try to find your logic center, I think you could concede that at least some of the arguments that Herbie Hind made are valid. Try something other than sticking your fingers in your ears and name calling for a change, you might like it.

    • JS42

      Herbie has his head up his Hind and will go to any length to defend Obama.

      • dnl2002

        Kindly point out where Herbie defended Obama, or Obamacare in any way? Your “buzzword retort machine with added name-calling feature” is malfunctioning, you got the wrong automatic response…

    • Todd Branco

      This is a cartoon. The purpose of this cartoon is to show why the obamacare ad is inappropriate. Advertising sex as a risk free activity isn’t a very good idea. The artist isn’t making any implications further then trying to paint that picture in one frame. It looks quite childish, when you try to make up those irrelevant implications, and even go so far as challenge his understanding of biology and reality. It doesn’t say much about your cognitive ability.

      • dnl2002

        What irrelevant implications are you referring to, Todd? While I think the original ad was tacky, it does say that the pill doesn’t protect you from STDs, and that condoms and common sense do. If the artist of this cartoon wanted to call attention to what he felt was the absurdity or danger in promoting birth control and/or casual sex, there are many more ways that the cartoon could have been executed that would have been incredibly more effective at getting his point across. By pointing out the fallacies in the cartoon as made, Herbie Hind is critiquing the execution, not the intent….which in the land of transmitting a message to the public is all that really matters. By having so many contradictions/fallacies in the single panel, an objective reader is likely to dismiss the cartoon’s overall message, even if the overall message may have a valid point or perspective worth considering. Do you have any counters to Herbie Hind’s actual statements?

  • kariod11

    First, I think you should read about how Obamacare works because I think you’re confused about how taxes work. Actually, maybe a cartoonist, should learn about tax law before he draws cartoons based in fallacy. Second, contraceptives such as birth control aren’t inexpensive. For example, ortho low costs $40 per month in addition to the unnecessary gynecological exam that was mandatory to have before a prescription could be written because insurance companies required them, so even with a good copay we’re looking at an extra $15, any additional labs, not covered by insurance, etc. A conservative estimate is about $500 per year. Third, women who use contraception aren’t sluts like it is implied in your cartoon. Many women use birth control for the non-sex related benefits including easier menstrual cycles.

    • Jim Jackson

      I should point out that using birth control for sex related benefits does not make someone a slut either. Though it’s interesting how the man involved does not seem to be portrayed as such.

      • dnl2002

        Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I thought the Puritans lived in the olden days…it’s sad to me how many people discount healthy adult sexuality as dirty and a choice rather than the biologically driven, integral aspect to overall health and well-being. (Not to mention it’s like many of them forget that married people use contraception, too. “That’s right kids, abstinence only until marriage, and then you’re good to go to enjoy a religiously sanctioned sexual relationship. Oh wait, except for you poor ones, you should just put an aspirin between your knees until you hit menopause.”)

  • RandomGuy13

    So…how does giving women birth control automatically make them sluts and whores? Also, *why* is it the woman’s fault? For all you or anyone knows, that woman was a virgin before him, but she got herpes by kissing one one of the many men who sleep with as many women as possible. In your cartoon, the problem is the man, not the woman. He is the obvious slut, to me. You know why? Because I know more women who take birth control to have an easier menses, than women who take it to sleep around. Come to think of it, I don’t know *any* women who take birth control simply to sleep around a lot. But, there isn’t a man I’ve met who doesn’t try to sleep with every woman who’ll let him. So, I see a woman in the background who’s happy that she isn’t going to bleed for three days while enduring painful cramps, while a man is complaining because one of the many women *he’s* slept with gave him herpes. If *he* wasn’t such a slut, maybe he wouldn’t have that problem. Maybe, *gasp!* maybe men should accept responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming a woman? And yes, I am a man.

    • Pizza Eater

      You’re barely a man my friend. You are a limp wristed lib.

  • TennLion

    We’re with you, not the crazy libs!

  • Herbie Hind

    Also – he is complaining about a condom breaking and the apparently random stranger he decided to sleep with getting pregnant and having to pay child support – while she is excited about birth control pills that would prevent pregnancy. He is upset about getting an STD but they obviously took measures to protect themselves and the condom broke (which happens and is no one’s fault) AND he is upset about the fact that she uses birth control (putting aside the fact that condoms are a form of birth control). So the assumption is that the woman who uses birth control is a slut – and because he chose to have sex with a slut – he got an STD and the condom broke AND the birth control that she loves to use failed and she still got pregnant and now he has to pay child support. Also – he is in no way a slut for having slept with a stranger who obviously has oral herpes. It seems to me that if that guy is interested in having sex with random women he should support the use of birth control so he decreases the risk of impregnating strangers and having to pay child support.

    • dnl2002

      Thank you for your comments, sorry that there are so many haters that are busy defaulting to tired, illogical arguments (and/or name-calling) at the very inkling that you might hold a different viewpoint on something..(which as we know, in their eyes at least, automatically invalidates any comments you make, no matter how sensible or fact-based.) It’s just too bad that this is the internet so you can’t see them siting there with their fingers in their ears going “na na na I can’t hear you, you stupid lib!” it’d be easier to avoid them that way…

  • forgetyoutooo

    Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare it’s a redistribution of wealth – it’s socialism.

    • Herbie Hind

      My critique of this comic has nothing to do with my stance on Obamacare (which I don’t support) and everything to do with the fact that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

      • Bob Deveny

        It’s a parody of the real ads, you idiot.

        • dnl2002

          But it’s a poor parody, Name-caller.

      • Pizza Eater

        You support Obama and you probably did support Obamacare until you woke up and realized it was a POS. Go back to your liberal sites and troll there.

        • Herbie Hind

          Having opinions that differ from your doesn’t mean that I’m “trolling”. I actually never supported Obamacare. I think it is a plan designed by the insurance companies for insurance companies.

    • Herbie Hind

      Also – it isn’t socialism. Please Google socialism. Socialism would be a single-payer system like they have in Canada or the UK… or like Medicare. Obamacare simply forces people to purchase health care plans from insurance companies.

      • John Dougherty

        It is too socialism, because it was designed to destroy the private insurance industry and create a crisis that could “only” be “solved” by instituting the single-payer system that Obama always said he wanted.

        • Shannon Morris

          Sure, that’s why Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Allstate, Guardian Life, State Farm, American Family Insurance, and Delta Dental were all among the 1247 organizations that lobbied for Obamacare.
          Oh, I’m sorry. Too many facts?
          Let me rephrase that- “Is NOT!”

          • John Dougherty

            I’m sorry, but when you cherry pick a few facts out of the bigger picture and ignore the predictable behavior of businesses under crony capitalism, you aren’t making the point you think you’re making. Or let me rephrase that – “Is TOO!”

        • Tlaxcalli

          What’s wrong with socialism? Anyway, Obamacare isn’t it.

          • John Dougherty

            Socialism tries to destroy your humanity. But at least its proponents can feel good about themselves while they go about tearing down everything that doesn’t fit their utopian delusions.

      • Clint Slaven

        Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the power to force the citizenry to purchase anything?

        • theame19

          It doesn’t and they can’t. This is why technically Obamacare is a tax. Thank the Supreme Court for that one.

        • Shannon Morris

          Do you own a car? A house? A business?
          Insurance is MANDATORY for all of these.

          • brizkymom

            No one has to own a car, business or house. If you do not have these, you do not have to purchase insurance. You have the choice. Since you do not have the choice to be born, it is simply ridiculous to be required to purchase something for that. Obama”care” has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with crony capitalism and wealth redistribution. Notice that the insurance companies’ stocks have soared since the ACA took effect. Their profits will be much more than the 7% they were prior to the ACA.

          • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

            That is a state demand, and in addition, I don’t have to own a car or a business, etc. etc., but I DO have to have my body. Compulsary when you accept the responsibility of an item and compulsary when you are breathing are VERY different.

      • VMWJ

        ‘”Simply” forces people to purchase’… is collectivist control over the purchasing decisions of individuals, and the means to do so is controlled (or nationalized) by public administration. Please Google socialism.

        • Shannon Morris

          Merriam-Webster defines Socialism as “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies”

          Uh huh. Maybe we should examine the way our government is “owning and controlling” these major industries.

          The figures that follow are:
          Lobbying 2009-2013 [Source: Senate Office of Public Records]
          Campaign contributions 2008-2012 [Source: Federal Election Commission]

          Securities/Investment
          Lobbying = $481,548,848
          Contributions = $559,845,191
          Total = $1,041,394,039
          Wall Street executives jailed for fraud/misconduct = 0
          On November 1st, the House of Representatives passed the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. According to The New York Times, Citigroup lobbyists drafted at least 70 of the bill’s 85 lines.

          Insurance
          Lobbying = $743,073,385
          Contributions = $152,850,938
          Total = $895,924,323
          Is it any wonder we don’t have a single payer system?
          Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Allstate, Delta Dental, Guardian Life, State Farm, American Family Insurance… were all among the 1247 organizations that lobbied for Obamacare.

          Oil & Gas
          Lobbying = $718,051,118
          Contributions = $144,990,767
          Total = $863,041,885
          During the current administration, increased drilling has boosted oil production from about 15 million barrels a day to over 19 million. [Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration]
          The International Energy Agency forecasts that the United States will become the world’s largest oil producer by 2015.

          That’s just three industries out of many more, and get this – They’re not even the top three. Still, together they have spent well over $2.3 TRILLION dollars on our government. So let me ask you this – Who is owning and controlling who?

          • Dan Vickers

            Right, The government doesn’t own companies, companies own the government.

  • yacope

    I believe the cartoon guy is talking GENITAL herpes, you don’t get that from kissing…also there has never been a shortage or inability to get birth control or hormone treatments (those are NOT labeled birth control even though birth control pills are prescribed) before obamacare was passed. Low income people could get it FREE at planned parenthood and as low as $9 dollars at Walmart.

    Sorry but if you want to have sex why should I contribute to that with MY tax money? Was I there? Did I enjoy it? Why is it that the woman and partner should be helped instead of taking full responsibility for THEIR own birth control and prevention of STDs? A lot of you are very explicit when you say people should stay out of your womb and let you have “choice” so why should we NOW be involved in those choices?

    You can’t have it both ways either fully exercise your “freedom of choice” and the consequences of your actions or give others power over those choices by demanding those choices be subsidized. Yeah, make a choice.

    • yacope

      Oral herpes is not an STD in most cases, just so you know where I’m going with that.

    • Herbie Hind

      Because encouraging the use of birth control decreases unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies lead to higher rates of abortion. Also – you pay much more for increased health care costs and social welfare programs for poor children and adults than you would for providing birth control for everyone.

      • Pizza Eater

        You libs use abortion as birth control anyway. Go back to Huffpo and post there.

      • Todd Branco

        Encouraging the use of birth control does not decrease unplanned pregnancies. When people USE birth control it helps prevent unplanned pregnancies. Encouraging the use of birth control creates a culture that thinks sex has minimal repercussions… It is not teaching adolescents that sex can in fact spread disease, cause heartache, and change lives. Ads like the Obamacare Ad [this cartoon is spoofing] make it seem flirty and fun for people to go get some free contraceptives and use them. That, to me is wrong. I think this cartoon does well in relaying that message.

        • Ariatan Avae

          The states that teach abstinence-only sex ed classes have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. The states that mandate that schools must offer a comprehensive sex-ed class have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy. So much for your theory.

          • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

            Prove it, Ariatan.

          • Ariatan Avae

            http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/

            “Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard.”

            “Mississippi continues to have the highest teen birth rate, with 55 births per 1,000 girls.”

            “New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught.”

            “New Hampshire has the lowest rate at just under 16 births per 1,000 girls.”

            “New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception.”

          • Tlaxcalli

            Hahahaha. I hear crickets chirping from TurtleShroom’s direction.

        • dnl2002

          Would you kindly point out any evidence that encouraging birth control creates such an environment as you claim? I would be more than happy to point you to numerous reputable sources that show that an encouragement of contraception leads to better quality of life (higher education, wages, etc.) for not only the women taking it, but their families, communities, and countries. There are plenty of examples in both developed and developing nations where contraception was encouraged and conditions improved in myriad ways. I have yet to see a study (or even strong anecdote) where the scenario you claim happened. Sources please?

        • Tlaxcalli

          Um, actually, the groups most at risk for STI infection are people who have sex with men, poor people, and racial minorities. That’s why middle-to-upper class white conservative men who run the country couldn’t care less about real solutions based on facts. Also, not everyone has a freaking STI, so no, a culture with birth control does not inherently promote STIs. Men inserting their sperm into other people is the #1 risk factor, but the fact is that straight men don’t care. Also, condoms probably protect men against herpes more than women, so men need to take responsibility for their own safety instead of blaming women. 90% of people with herpes don’t know they have it, so stop whining. Ignorance isn’t bliss. Ignorance promotes STIs.

      • yacope

        Did I say not to use birth control? I said if YOU are sleeping around or have a steady partner then YOU should pay for your birth control and std prevention because I wasn’t there with you to enjoy it (eewww).

        The choices are clear: choose to do with your body as you will and deal with those consequences or beg for others to subsidize it and give them the power to control what you do with it.

        If you don’t want others in your room telling you what to do don’t invite them in by asking them to facilitate your activities there.

        • dnl2002

          I just wanna know when the law was passed that says we get to pick and choose where our taxes go. I’d like to sign up to stop paying for dirty wars, subsidies to billionaires, kickbacks to oil companies, and I’d like to de-fund pretty much everything in Texas…maybe if we do that they’ll just go away. (What, that’s their plan for women’s health care there, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?)

          And WHY are so many people here convinced that paying for people’s birth control (whether or not you approve of their sexual relationships) is somehow MORE EXPENSIVE than paying for the resulting pregnancy, birth, health insurance, social security, and other myriad social services the mother and child are likely to receive? Almost half of the births in this country are paid for by Medicaid. Do you not realize that we’re already forking over billions that could be prevented by some comprehensive sex education and universal access to contraception? What La-La land are you living in that you think it’s a crying shame that some of the pot of money is going to the most effective way to reduce those costs? I seriously think I might laugh in the face of the next person making these statements that claims to be “fiscally responsible.”

          • yacope

            Do you realize that people can get birth control any day they want for free at planned parenthood? I don’t have to say anything else because there is no shortage of birth control. Forcing other people’s plans to become more expensive because of this fake issue is wrong.

            Are you a single man? If so why should you be mandated to pay for maternity services and birth control pills. Do you not see how that makes your insurance more expensive? All your other arguments are strawman arguments and not to the point. I won’t want to contribute in any way shape or form for someone else’s recreational activities. Don’t want to risk having kids? Pay for your own birth control (all of them fail) or keep it in your pants or your legs crossed because that’s the only sure way to not become pregnant or acquire an STD.

          • dnl2002

            I live in a town of more than 15,000 and the closest PP is 80 miles round trip. Said clinic is open only a few days a week, and not in the evening. There are not public health clinics. I assure you that the idea that people can just walk into the closest clinic and get contraception is wishful thinking. In addition, what do you suggest that all the millions of people that live in states that have systematically de-funded groups like PP do? If we’re going to have a system like ours, then the fact is that everyone is going to have to chip in, whether or not they receive the services based on their gender. I also can promise that NOT covering contraception drives up your medical costs more than you can imagine. The perpetuation of the human race requires both genders, the fact that one disproportionately has costs associated with that process is irrelevant…we all have a vested interest. Show me how the cost of universal access to free contraception somehow costs more than paying for unplanned and ill-advised pregnancy and birth and then maybe I might reconsider my position. Until then, I know which one costs me less money in the long run.

            Further, human sexuality is an integral part of overall health for adults. Biology has worked very, very effectively over millions of years to ensure that it’s a lot more complicated than just making a choice to keep it in your pants. Stop thinking of it as something dirty that people who can’t afford kids shouldn’t do and start living in the real world.

            In addition, kindly point out any straw-man arguments I used in my last comment, and I will be glad to clarify or amend my statements.

          • VMWJ

            Are you twelve, or do you just not understand that willy-nilly laws need to be based in some Constitutional authority?

      • VMWJ

        Encouraging the use of birth control and giving it away like candy are not the same thing. Maybe discouraging risky behavior would be a better benefit to these young ladies.

        • dnl2002

          Discouraging risky behavior could certainly benefit women, but being realistic and understanding that not everyone is going to take that advice, it is not fair to dismiss out of hand the benefit also given by readily available birth control. It is entirely possible to do both, and in fact, I champion mandatory *comprehensive* sex education in addition to contraception being freely available. It’s one thing to encourage a poor or lower-economic status woman to utilize contraception, but if she can’t afford it or access it, how can she use it? Giving it away ensures that those barriers are removed.

          Also, please do not discount the fact that millions of women who are married or in otherwise stable, monogamous relationships also use contraception to space or prevent children. Just because she’s married shouldn’t mean that she should have to be willing to welcome a child into the world every time she and her husband would like to be intimate.

          • VMWJ

            Using and purchasing condoms, birth control pills, or being abstinent during fertile times makes me think of the term”personal responsibility”, not an advertising campaign of “Hey, he’s hot – make sure you’re ready for casual sex with your Obama birth control” . And your “mandatory” “comprehensive” education for others sounds like something in a Cold-War era B-movie.

    • Pizza Eater

      Very well stated. I find it funny that they actually think they could have their BC taken away. Obama said if you like your BC you can keep your BC and he wouldn’t lie would he?

    • Ariatan Avae

      And you never raised a complaint about having paid for men’s Viagra this entire time because…?

      • Tlaxcalli

        Seriously, I’m against my tax dollars going toward Viagra. Was I there? Did I enjoy it? rofl

    • Tlaxcalli

      “Sorry but if you want to have sex why should I contribute to that with MY tax money? Was I there? Did I enjoy it?”

      LMFAO. Most hilarious statement ever. Someone please make a cartoon out of it.

  • Robert Mau

    LOVE this. I was offended by the “real” ad, where the young woman was portrayed as a slut who used language degrading the young man. Yes, birth control (including condoms) is inexpensive enough. And why promote promiscuity to further a failed policy?

    • Herbie Hind

      Why is the woman a slut for wanting to have sex? Also – why is the guy in this comic not a slut for having sex??????? Double standard much? I would argue that neither of them are sluts – the guy in this comic just had poor decision making skills (obvious oral herpes) and blames everyone else for them.

      • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

        They are ALL sluts. Anyone who fornicates out of wedlock is a slut, and there are no exceptions. Men can be sluts as much as women, and I agree that the double standard of not holding men responsible for their promiscuity is wrong.

        • Tlaxcalli

          “Anyone who fornicates out of wedlock is a slut, and there are no exceptions.”

          LOL, you’re either 75+ years old, or a virgin under the age of 22. Or soon to be divorced. That’s pretty pathetic to call 99+% of the population sluts.

    • Ruth Miller

      Thats only 1 of the ads. The others talk about drinking binges and other not wise behavior. After all having sex with an unknown partner can lead to Aids and other diseases.

      • dnl2002

        No, some of the ads talk about bicycling, mothers taking care of sick children, team sports, and others. Yes, there were a few sexually charged ads, and yes some (myself included) will find them tacky. However, to be fair, the ad in question has a big star beside the line about getting the guy under the covers, and the disclaimer at the bottom reminds people that the pill does not prevent against STDs, and that condoms and common sense do that.

  • Jocelyn Luxton Maurer

    Awesome as usual, Tony!! #RepealObamacare

  • http://www.facebook.com/ted.copeland.3 Ted Copeland

    It’s a parody of the original ACA ad the “OMG he’s so hot, glad I’ve got birth control”. Lighten up

    • Herbie Hind

      The original ad makes sense. The woman sees a guy she likes and might want to *gasp* have sex with. She is relieved she has birth control. This comic (loose interpretation of the word) shows a guy angry because he got oral herpes from a girl after his condom broke (not science) and also she takes birth control but got pregnant anyway (because BOTH forms of birth control failed) and now he has to pay child support and THANKS OBAMA!! It is incoherent.

      • bb6317

        Please, go back to Media Matters and HuffPo and post there, as certainly logic and parody escapes you. The original ad was MUCH more than just “oh, I might want to have sex with him”–it was purely “thank goodness for O’care, NOW I can go have sex with him worry free”. And, no, I’m all for birth control–and have used it in the past–but even when in HS and college, it was (and is) well within reach for even the poorest of the poor. PP, local health clinics, and other ‘charitable’ health organizations provide free or almost free birth control. Taxpayers or all insured should not be required to pay for what is purely a choice.

        Now, if you want to argue “medical necessity”, sure, many of us can play along, but the fact is that those cases are an extremely small percentage of the population who do use it.

        • dnl2002

          I live in a town of over 15,000. Our local PP closed a couple of years ago, along with the factory that provided work for a huge portion of the town. Yes, condoms may be “inexpensive” to purchase in a store, but the days of having access to any other form of birth control without making an 80 mile round trip are gone. There are many married couples that both work full time that are unable to pay for contraception and make “too much” to qualify for any social services, even if they were able to get time off work to make that 80 mile trip. Contraception is hardly well within reach, even for those that aren’t paupers.

          Further, sexual relationships as adults are a biologically driven, integral component of overall health (feel free to look up any respected medical body’s opinions on the topic) and to suggest that a healthy sexual relationship (particularly one condoned by marriage in our culture) is nothing more than “purely a choice” is reductionist and hardly realistic. Access to contraception has been shown repeatedly to correlate with higher education and earning potential for women the world over.

          Not to mention that whether they want to our not, taxpayers are already required to pay for others’ choices…almost half of the babies born in this country have mothers covered on Medicaid for pregnancy, birth, and well-child care. The average birth alone is over $10,000. Add to that health care, food subsidies (SNAP, WIC) and education, plus the lost earning potential that happens to the economy for those children born to teen mothers and those in extreme poverty, and I can promise you that the cost of “free” birth control is a mere FRACTION of what we are already spending in this country.

      • John Salmeier

        Birth control at 600 times the original cost adjusting for the higher insurance premiums… Nothing is TRULY without cost. Good choice NOT!

    • afbranco

      Here is the real Obama-care ad BTW… http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/gotinsurance.asp

  • afbranco

    Here is the real Obama-care ad…. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/gotinsurance.asp

    • Herbie Hind

      I saw the ads earlier. I am critiquing the execution of your argument. Which is actually pretty detached from reason. Although – your drawings look pretty cool.

  • Pizza Eater

    Standing by AFB. Where are the lbs when their cartoons make fun of Pro life women?

  • davidfige

    Someone has to fill me in how the “Pill” stops Herpes ? SMH…

  • mmt

    Ignore them…… Their using whatever they can sell to swallow the whole. Ignore them.

  • JS42

    reminds me of the old ditty “ever since I met your daughter I’ve had trouble passing water…” Well done Branco. This is Socialism Light because it amounts to redistribution of wealth. The more honest Libtards will admit this.

  • afbranco
  • bartmansan

    Here’s a plan. Get Gov’t COMPLETELY out of the Health Care system.

    Here’s step #1 – Eliminate the FDA. Close all offices Immediately. Repeal ALL FDA regs. Period!

    Step #2 – Allow the insurance companies to COMPETE in a FREE MARKET system & across state lines. You’ll see prices start dropping faster than panties at late ’60’s Tom Jones concert.

    Step #3 – Eliminate the following; The EPA; The Fed. Dept. of Education(done at state and local levels ONLY); The Federal Reserve; Dept. of HHS;

    Get back to me when you’ve completed these simple tasks.

    Oh, and to Mr. Branco, KEEP up the great work.

    And ALWAYS Remember: “You have enemies. Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~Sir Winston Churchill

    You’re in good company Branco!

    • Herbie Hind

      Step #4. Dissolve the military.
      Step #5. Dissolve the government.
      Step #6. Move back into caves.
      Step #7. Forget how to make fire.

      • bartmansan

        Mr. Hind,

        Without the Conservatives, liberals would STILL be living in the caves freezing to death, waiting on someone to come BUILD a fire for them.

        • Snownova

          Wrong, conservatives would be afraid of fire because it would bring change, their #1 enemy. Liberals are the ones always pushing the envelope and embracing change.

        • Tlaxcalli

          No, actually, without the liberal, conservatives would still be sitting on their arses while black slaves toiled away for them. Not to mention raping the women and enslaving their own children to avoid admitting that they had illicit sex.

  • Jeannine Hess

    Love the cartoon……love A.F. Branco…….

  • Todd Branco

    Its interesting to me that the liberal’s who are taking interest in this cartoon can’t seem to understand that you are using humor to bring to light the inappropriate nature of Ads like the Obamacare Ad this cartoon is spoofing. Instead they would rather make inaccurate correlations and unrealistic assumptions about your knowledge of biology. Obamacare Ads make it seem flirty
    and fun for people to obtain free contraceptives and use them.
    Their is no discussion of the myriad repercussions that can result from immature sexuality. Think of all the problems that arise from sexuality outside of a loving relationship: Stds, gut wrenching heartache, self esteem issues. The decision to have sex should be a more disciplined decision. Advertising sex as merely something flirty and fun is COMPLETELY inappropriate for the government to do. I think this cartoon does well in relaying that
    message.

    • Herbie Hind

      Is the guy who made the comic your dad? Because if so – that is really sweet. Also – totally disagree with you. Conservatives can also use basic logic to point out bad arguments. This is a bad argument. I am sure Mr. Branco is capable of crafting a better argument and it would do more to support his cause if he did. He tried to make a parody – unfortunately the parody is way more offensive and nonsensical than the original ad. I don’t care whether Mr. Branco is a conservative or a liberal – all that I’m concerned with whether he makes a reasonable argument – which he doesn’t. At this point his comic is saying “That guy got oral herpes from that lady who likes birth control (because ladies who use birth control are sluts)” – if he had stopped there his argument would still be really offensive to any woman who uses birth control but at least would have made sense (in a really misogynistic way). But he didn’t – he decided to add a bunch of hashtags that list the reasons someone might want to use birth control (in case the condom breaks, preventing pregnancy, not wanting to pay child support) and then adds “got herpes”. On top of that he adds something about the website not working. There is entirely too much going on here and none of it is working. I’m sure he can do better than this – especially because – from looking at his artwork – he has artistic talent.

      • Todd Branco

        This cartoon has gotten a lot of publicity from both conservatives and liberals. Generally cartoons that don’t make a powerful statement aren’t given a second look. For some reason, however, this cartoon is getting attention from both “sides.” If you think about the billions of dollars that are spent on Std’s a year, I think it would be a stretch to say that the cartoon is not reflecting a reasonable argument. If you have seen the original Ad, it both condones promiscuity and paints women as bimbos. The cartoon is meant to spoof that.

        • dnl2002

          “Generally cartoons that don’t make a powerful statement aren’t given a second look.” Powerful? Hardly. This cartoon is incredibly misogynistic, and the idea that a certain branch of our politics is routinely misogynistic and doesn’t really care who knows about it is supported by it’s popularity on that side. The other side is using it as a tool to illustrate yet another incidence of blatant disrespect from their political adversaries.

      • Matthew Underwood

        You really didn’t get it. That’s too bad.

        • dnl2002

          Would you care to enlighten us please, Mr. Underwood? Saying “that’s too bad” does absolutely nothing to help change people’s minds about a topic. In what aspect is Herbie wrong? Why do you feel so strongly about your position?

          • Matthew Underwood

            Why would I want to change his mind? He’s assuming a lot and overthinking everything. How do you change that? He approaches a joke like a woman….over-analizing, long discourses on how it doesn’t make sense, responding to everyone’s post for some extra attention…(thought I’d throw in some “misogynistic” comments since I see you like that so much ;) It’s a joke on some pretty inappropriate ads. That’s it. The original ad is incredibly degrading to any woman with a smidge of dignity (that smug look on the guys face who’s about to get laid really completes the picture…the whole thing screams, “women are tools for men’s pleasure and now, thanks to Obamacare, they don’t have to worry about ever thinking of her twice after that orgasm”) Women think they are empowered by being able to be free with their sexuality, but they forget to take into account that it is only perceived empowerment. Real empowerment comes from courage, virtue, strong character, education. So many women from the leftover idea of “free love” are giving away beautiful pieces of themselves to men who care nothing for them. It’s sad. And inappropriate for a government to promote. It was just a comment, though. Don’t overthink it. ~Note: If you think the cartoon is “misogynistic,” like you said in another comment, it would be because they are spoofing on the original misogynistic cartoon. It’s funny.

          • dnl2002

            Woah…you totally lost me at the “He approaches a joke like a woman…” So his comments (and that of women) are of less value because they are over-thought? As opposed to the typical “under-thought” ones? Nice stereotypes you have there. And this is a discussion section, not a fan site, responding to comments is kind of how you participate in one of those.

            I thought the original ad was in poor taste and tacky, but there’s a big difference between portraying a female character that enjoys sex (even with someone she doesn’t know well) and one that intimates that the majority of women using birth control are promiscuous. You are right that sexuality is but one component of a woman’s character, the problem is you seem to think that if a woman chooses to have a sexual relationship outside marriage that it flaws her entire character. News flash: both women and men enjoy sex. In America, it is generally only acceptable for men to admit that they like it, or to have it with someone other than a woman they are married to.

            I don’t find suggesting that millions of women (many, many of whom are married) who use the pill are diseased, and that a man who had intercourse with a number of women has a right to be mad at the woman and Obamacare for somehow having a condom break AND her contraception fail funny. I don’t understand how responding to perceived misogyny with MORE misogyny makes the situation better. I also don’t find it empowering to women to in one sentence talk about courage and virtue of women and in another use stereotypes that suggest that analyzing someone’s arguments and responding is woman-like and inferior.

          • Matthew Underwood

            hahahaha..oh, wow! Yeah….it was a joke. Hence the “thought I’d throw in some misogynistic comments…” and the winky face. I know it was a bland and disrespectful joke but COME ON! Where is the sense of humor? This cartoon is funny, not because it is misogynist or because its disrespectful to women but because it bashes an ad that clearly is. How do you explain humor to someone? I don’t know..we all laugh at different things, I suppose. There’s nothing inferior in overanalyzing, that’s something you came up with. I was only saying he didn’t get the joke, he was dissecting it. Also, a woman having a sexual relationship outside marriage…it doesn’t flaw their entire character, but it does causes them to lose virtuous pieces of themselves that are meant for their husband. It is the same for men. Both should wait, because I think in our oversexed society, people have lost sight of the fact that sex isn’t supposed to be about selfish pleasure and using others who are using you to obtain said pleasure. It is about giving yourself to that person in total self-giving love and that love sometimes manifests itself into another human being. The way we treat sex, both men and women, make a mockery of that. It’s a shame. We should be promoting strong, everlasting relationships which empower entire societies, not standing by while our government promotes a Miley Cyrus-minded agenda ….idk, I was going somewhere with that but I lost my thought.

  • greenmulberry

    Because women have free birth control, men get herpes?? What????

    • Snownova

      Conservative train of thought goes as follows:
      Young christian virgin girl + contraceptives = raging slut.
      Sex outside of marriage = rampant STD’s.
      Women + contraceptives + sex + STD’s = White men with herpes. (and let’s face it white men are the only group they actually care about).

      • greenmulberry

        I always want to ask these conservatives what married women are supposed to do without contraceptives. Just have ten children that we cannot support, and have to get on government assistance? Surely they do not suggest I avoid my wifely duties with my husband!

  • afbranco

    This cartoon spoofs the “original” ad produced by the Obama admin. This ad is much more degrading to women than the cartoon, and it appears to promote promiscuity as a healthy choice if you “Got Obama-care”. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/gotinsurance.asp

  • catlvr4395

    This is what happens when personal responsibility goes out the window. If you can’t afford birth control, don’t have sex. Period. It’s not a necessity of life and the government shouldn’t have to subsidize it. I don’t work 40+ hours per week to say for the sex lives of those that don’t.

    • dnl2002

      The fact that you think sex is not a necessity of life is laughable. Millions of years of biology have pretty much guaranteed that it is. Please go ask any respected medical body if sexual health is not a vital component to overall wellness for adults. Also, the sheer absurdity of thinking for one second that by NOT paying for contraception LESS of your tax dollars will go to people you are so quick to dismiss as irresponsible is almost awe-inspiring. If you would like to claim to be “fiscally conservative” that requires basic math ability…I can promise that contraception is a lot less costly than a lifetime of potential lost dollars into the economy and the added costs of social supports and health care for those born into poverty. Don’t forget that a very large number of those that will receive free contraception are also working 40+ hours a week, and they still can’t afford to go to the doctor or pay for prescriptions. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, and maybe when you’re dealing with the blisters they have on a daily basis you’ll be a little more empathetic to the plight of your fellow citizen.

  • jaxholley

    Wait a minute you mean men don’t get free condoms. That’s sexist! We should get free little blue pills too.

  • Ruth Miller

    Thank you to all the Liberals who have posted on this page for proving how tolerant you are of opposing viewpoints.
    I love it when Liberals prove there is No Civility or Tolerance in their philosophy for people who don’t share their beliefs.

    • dnl2002

      Can you tell me where the liberals have denigrated an entire gender? Having no tolerance for viewpoints that harm others is hardly uncivil, in fact, it’s the opposite. Etiquette has been around for thousands of years, it’s a shame that so many people have forgotten the simple “Do unto others” Golden Rule that pretty much every major religion and philosophy holds dear.

  • Wolverine

    Kenya dig it ?

  • Duaine

    Freedom of speech is a wonderful gift from our forefathers who begot this great nation in a trial of blood and agony.

  • Caral Freeman

    people that disagree with this cartoon are the ones that think the stupid obamacare commercials and ads are so cute. That explains it. They were brain dead before the cartoon was drawn.

  • freedomhawk1776

    Thanks big government! Nothing says love like tax payer provided birth control or maybe a tax payer funded planned parenthood abortion. I love you too! A.F. Branco, you rock.

  • timmmus

    stupid ad

  • Pete

    It’s a parody from a commercial. If it offends you that much, then turn off your TV your Radio and any other form of social communication because this cartoon is pg rated. The hypocrites of society enrage me.

  • Pete

    You don’t think that promoting a sexual culture is not offensive to people? What two consenting adults do is there own business, however the commercial which is a democratic political promotion, is unprofessional. but to be offended by this cartoon and not the constant perversion, violence, and bigotry portrayed everyday (that is deemed ok, because some guy in a tie, or an open collar says so) is a complete hypocracy. The whole left argument is Christians (the liberal;s scapegoats) are the only ones who are against a perverted society. That is a bigoted way of thinking and unreal. Most Athiests raise their children to not just go out and have “casual sex” with strangers. Most Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Agnostics do not want their children to go out and have sex with strangers. What right does any political commercial have to set that mindset for our culture.But people are offended by this cartoon? I keep my mouth shut when others do. But the attack on this author for being comical is an outrage.

    • dnl2002

      The “attack” on the author that I’ve seen so far in these comments isn’t that it’s not ok to feel that sexuality should be private and that the original ad wasn’t offensive…it is that his rebuttal was poorly made, and instead of making a statement that we should all (both genders) behave in a more socially appropriate way, instead it came off as full of logical fallacies and directly implies that the spread of STDs is related to women who use birth control. That particular aspect of his cartoon undeniably repeats the same hurtful double standard that we have in our country in regards to women and sexuality. The rebuttals to this comic have been largely based on the specific content of the panel, not the intent. Even if you assume that the intent was to make a statement against promiscuity, an objective look at the comic would lead to the conclusion that because of the fallacies (i.e. oral herpes and genital herpes are two different things, if the woman really was on birth control, then if the condom broke, the man would have not impregnated her or needed to pay child support…or the fact that the way it’s worded makes it sound like the man has had relations with many of those women, and still blames the woman for giving him an STD, again furthering the sexual double standard) then the whole argument gets dismissed out of hand. If one would like to get the message out that the original ad was offensive and illogical, it’s best to make sure that one’s rebuttal is not also offensive and illogical. If you would like to promote ideas (such as the need to reign in unchecked, unhealthy portrayal of sexuality), then making sure the people that inevitably get grouped with your side of an argument are also using effective statements that don’t automatically turn people off to your cause. Sometimes negative comments are constructive criticism rather than attacks.

      All that said, you’re correct in that people should be more than welcome to hold the opinion that blatant sexuality and violence are not appropriate for general polite company. I’m not personally into theism myself, but I happen to not agree with the idea that Christians are the only ones that ever protest against that type of thing, and just for the record, I also thought that the original “pro-Obamacare” ad was tacky and in poor taste. However, as the overwhelming majority of conservatives are also Christian, some people don’t make the distinction. Coming from a strictly historical perspective, though…you have to admit that the Bible doesn’t look kindly on female sexuality and that many factions of Christianity have consistently used shame as a means to control it. I absolutely understand that not all those who label themselves Christian hold those beliefs. However, given that the overwhelming majority in our country are Christian, and that those in power are also almost exclusively Christian, it is that religion, and not others, that gets called to task for statements against blatant sexuality. (I’m not assigning any value judgements there, just observing.)

      I hope I might have offered a different perspective on the subject. Have a nice day!

  • Michelle Simmons

    You blame the woman, who has an STD, obamacare, and birth control pills, for infecting the man with an STD. What about the man? It takes two to have sex and pass on the STD. If he had kept it inside his pants he wouldn’t have gotten the STD. And the woman got the initial STD from a man who also didn’t keep it in his pants. So basically, the STD shown in the cartoon was started by a man not keeping it in his pants.

  • Shannon Morris

    Wow. So, if a woman can’t get pregnant, we should assume that she is a slut who is infected with every STD known to man. Well, last I heard, MEN can’t get pregnant either, so there you have it, ladies – Men are ALL diseased.

    “I don’t want to pay for HER sex with MY taxes!” I guess you’d rather pay FIVE times that amount for a child born into a family on government assistance. (Or, maybe you’d prefer to let them all starve.) You’d think any fiscal conservative would realize that $234 million is LESS than $1.32 billion.
    ” the biggest return on investment would come from expanding access to family planning through Medicaid, something made possibly through the 2010 Affordable Care Act. A $235 million investment there would lower taxpayer costs of $1.32 billion by preventing unintended pregnancies.”
    – the Brookings Center on Children and Families,

    Insurance companies have been required to cover contraception (just like EVERY other prescription drug) since December 14th, 2000.
    So to everyone bashing Obama over this – Welcome to reality. The ONLY thing he changed was to eliminate the co-pay. Perhaps it is unwise to assume that this change will turn all of the wives, sisters, daughters, or perhaps even yourself into a raving skank.

  • Rus Archer

    Because only promiscuous people use birth control?
    And a woman using birth control prevents a male from using condoms?
    GENIUS!

  • Michael Gunderson

    Hey Libs …. where’s the free turkey, the free car, the free house, the free hookers, the free heroin….. and of course the free obamacare Anal Scan…

  • lostvyking

    Hey Libs! It is humor! Get over it! … and get over yourselves! you take yourselves way to seriously.

  • Tlaxcalli

    Viagra leads to divorce. Why am I paying taxes for this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-202293/Viagra-lead-divorce.html