I don't think it has anything to do with hate. They just have a political position that they will defend to the death because otherwise they "lose." Doesn't matter what its effects on women are - what matters is "winning."
I think they started with a reasonable position (i.e. "it's not good to abort late term fetuses") and then several things happened. 1) They decided to make it a party position. Thus they had to take a zero tolerance approach to make it defensible lest people start slippery-sloping it. 2) The right wing echo chamber got involved. Some people get all their news there. They never heard about cases of pregnancy after rape, or selective reduction, or issues with Rh incompatibility. All they heard, over and over again, was that drug-addled black welfare moms with Obamaphones were aborting nine month fetuses. And clearly _that's_ a bad thing that must be opposed. 3) In many cases - they didn't think at all. They used sound bites to replace thought (i.e. "abortion stops a beating heart" or whatever the current catchphrase is) and went with that. That's not to say that there aren't some true misogynists out there. But for political positions like abortion, I think it's far more common for people to just adopt a platform wholesale without a lot of thought.
Well that sounds all nice and dandy, do you have say evidence, maybe a timeline showing in detail over time how their radicalism progressed? I think many of them start from deep theological stance where they think Jesus cry over all the dead babies or something and then extrapolate from there, sure party politics and faux news adds to it but I think religion is the start, religion is the start of most unlogic in the world, but hey that just what I think.
¿Domestic Violence Conviction a Feather in Maine Republican's Hat? Is Domestic Violence the Next Hardline Right-Wing Battle Front? Okay, so here's a test. Amanda Marcotte asks: Is the trend of Republican politicians living in fear of hard right primary challengers finally petering out, collapsing under the collective weight of those challengers' nuttiness? For Americans whose politics land them anywhere to the left of figures like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who is being challenged in his GOP primary by Rep. Steve Stockman, we hope the answer is yes. Despite the potential of "Rob Ford–levels of entertainment", the reality is that the United States, being generally a two-party republic, needs both of those parties awake and aware. After an electoral debacle in 2012, Republicans would, one might have speculated, get the message about certain forms of extremism in their platform. But when it comes to women's issues, they have indeed doubled down, as the now clichéd phrase would have it. To the other, there is Erick Bennett. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let us hop on over to Mario Moretto, of the Bangor Daily News: Erick Bennett, a conservative Portland consultant who has launched a Republican primary campaign against incumbent U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, says his experience with the justice system — which he obtained when he was convicted of domestic violence assault 10 years ago — is driving him toward what he calls a "pro-family" agenda. Bennett held a news conference Monday in Portland, during which he talked about his campaign, the domestic violence conviction, and controversy over his self-described role as a staffer for Gov. Paul LePage's 2010 campaign — a role that others in LePage's campaign team said Bennett never played. Republican power players in Maine, including state GOP Chairman Rick Bennett — no relation — have distanced themselves from the primary hopeful, who they say is not a credible primary challenger. Erick Bennett deflected those comments Monday, saying he's had invitations to speak with several GOP county caucuses ahead of the 2014 primary. "The majority of the state party, at this point, is worried about their meal ticket losing and the people actually getting someone that's going to represent them," he said. "I think that's where their opposition is coming from." Bennett was convicted of Class D assault in a 2003 District Court ruling after attacking his wife. The two since have divorced. This whole thing appears to be about women and how Erick Bennett feels about them. At the heart of the matter for Bennett: Bennett claims he is innocent and said the justice system is stacked against alleged attackers in domestic violence cases. When asked about his specific case, he said he was "railroaded" by the court after declining to accept a plea agreement. "All that needs to be done is you have to repeat what you wrote down in the police report and that allows the victim to be viewed as a credible witness," he said. "So basically, if someone writes something down, it doesn't have to be true. All they have to do is repeat that on the stand .... That's grounds for anyone to be convicted of domestic violence." Bennett said Collins had supported laws that made it easier for victims to obtain convictions, but would not give any specific examples of which laws. He said he could provide specific information at a later date. He also said his time in jail speaks volumes about his character. "The fact that I have been jailed repeatedly for not agreeing to admit to something I didn't do should speak to the fact of how much guts and integrity I have," he said. "If I go to D.C., I'm going to have that same integrity in doing what I say, and saying what I do, when it comes to protecting people's rights, as well as their pocketbooks. It's an interesting proposition for voters in Maine. To the other, that Bennett has done time means he should know the rule about prison: Everyone is innocent. Still, though, Bennett is playing an interesting hand. Are there enough voters out there who will agree that the problem with domestic violence is the laws that prohibit it? Do voters really want to retry his case yet again? Does Bennett really want the record opened? I guess that last also involves the question of whether or not he will get the message if people revisit his conviction and agree with it. Of course, we'll probably find out. Now that the cards are on the table, every journalist covering U.S. Senate races will be after the trial transcript. ____________________ Notes: Marcotte, Amanda. "Maine GOP Primary Challenger Cites Domestic Violence Conviction as a Reason to Trust Him". The XX Factor. January 3, 2014. Slate.com. January 4, 2014. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...me_for_senate_because_i_was_convicted_of.html Moretto, Mario. "Susan Collins' primary challenger says fight against assault conviction shows integrity". Bangor Daily News. December 30, 2013. BangorDailyNews.com. January 4, 2014. http://bangordailynews.com/2013/12/...t-against-assault-conviction-shows-integrity/
Reviewing the Trend Reviewing the Trend Steve Benen today posted a contrast of Democratic and Republican approaches toward issues focusing on women, including the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill, which actually forbids private insurance carriers from offering policies that cover abortion under the ACA. You know, HR 7, one of the Speaker's prerogatives. Whatever. In and of itself—that is, as an isolated issue forbidden any contact or intermingling with other aspects—one can almost see the logic. But taken out of that artificial isolation? What have we seen just over the last couple of weeks? * Republicans have gone after Texas gubernatorial hopeful Wendy Davis (D) over the details of her personal family history. One Texas Republican eventually conceded, "If this involved a man running for office, none of this would ever come up." * Mike Huckabee delivered a bizarre speech to the RNC in which he argued that Democrats believe women require government mandated contraception access because women can't control their libidos. * Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Hillary Clinton can be criticized for Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair 19 years ago because "sometimes it's hard to separate one from the other." * Republican state policymakers continue to push new restrictions on women's reproductive rights, including a proposed 30-day waiting period in Louisiana. * Sean Hannity suggested yesterday the creation of an "Adopt-A-Woman Birth Control Program" as an alternative to guaranteeing contraception access in federal health care law. * Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) wrote a book in which he argued wives should "voluntarily submit" to their husbands. * Republican Senate hopeful Ken Buck in Colorado explained his opposition to abortion rights by comparing pregnancy to cancer, which is why he doesn't think a woman should "be in control of her body." * Republican congressional hopeful Dick Black in Virginia opposes making spousal rape a crime and has called military rape "as predictable as human nature." On the other hand, Republicans chose a woman to deliver their official SOTU response, right? Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) said this week, "It's hard for me to phrase this politely. Sometimes Republicans think that just putting a woman up front means somehow that women are going to feel good about the party. It is not about the messenger. It's about the message. And until we figure that one out, while it's nice that we have a woman as a spokesperson, if the message itself doesn't get changed a bit, it's not going to work." And note Whitman's point. Putting a certain face on a particular policy does not change that policy's merits. This is why a bit from Irin Carmon's report on HR 7 stands out so: Republicans say that federal subsidies to help people buy private insurance that may or may not cover abortion counts as taxpayer funding. About half the states have already passed into law some form of ban on some or all private insurance covering abortion. Republicans–with the help of more than half of the 19 GOP women in the House–argued that abortion isn't actually about women, so there is no war on women. "This bill is not an attack on women or an attack on women's rights," said Rep. Virginia Foxx. Referring to Democrats' characterization of the bill as conservative men waging a war on women, particularly in the male-dominated subcommittee, she said, "I think it's wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking on behalf of the unborn." Right. It's wonderful that they had so many men there today to try to use force of law to exclude vital aspects of reproductive health from health care insurance. At what point does the sample size allow the subsequent considerations to be considered significant? It keeps happening. I mean, the RNC sees it, but apparently can't figure out how to stanch the bleeding; there is no sanitary napkin for self-inflicted political wounds. Rep. Foxx (R-NC05) is an example of the policy prescription; the problem, as the GOP sees it, is not the substance of the policy, but that they haven't found the right sales pitch. They still think there is some formulation, some face and voice they can put to the ideas, that will compel women to say, "Oh, I see! That's what they were after! Now I get it, and they've been right the whole time!" As there are factions in the anti-abortion community that make the point of wondering why women are so darn irresponsible, we might wonder at the coincidence of legislation and lawsuits intended to make it even harder for them to be responsible according to that outlook. Well, unless by responsible they mean women should be home and popping out babies as often as her husband can seed them. But it is unclear how many of the anti-abortion advocates actually want that outcome and how many would merely accept it. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "On policy towards women, a study in contrasts". MSNBC. January 29, 2014. MSNBC.com. January 29, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/policy-towards-women-study-contrasts Carmon, Irin. "House passes abortion insurance restriction". MSNBC. January 28, 2014. MSNBC.com. January 29, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-passes-abortion-insurance-restriction
What you fail to acknowledge is that if a person believes that abortion is murder, then opposing it is a moral duty that has nothing to do with reproductive rights but is simply a matter of protecting innocent life. At some point a fetus becomes a person. Is it only when he/she has passed thru the vaginal canal? Is it at nine months? Is it the point when the fetus could live outside the mother? Or is it conception? This is the point of contention. No one is saying a woman should not have control of her body, but rather that at some point the rights of the unborn baby must also be considered.
Shortcomings And what that sympathy fails to acknowledge is the lack of any affirmative assertions about that belief. The result, of course, is that if I have a sincere belief in ... well, what? That the Lucky Charms leprechaun wants me to protect homosexuals by gunning down homophobes in church? Okay, how about something more realistic. Scott Roeder is a confessed murderer. He wants a new trial because, even though he confessed to gunning Dr. George Tiller into the grave, he doesn't think that should count as murder. Why? Because he acted on a sincere belief. The court, to the other, is skeptical. But it does raise the question: Do you consider it unfair that Scott Roeder was convicted of murder? Underlying the usual distractions about whether all anti-abortionists are terrorists or whatever is an actually functional issue: Can a "sincere belief" be entirely arbitrary? Sincere beliefs are sincere beliefs; but lacking any affirmative assertion of how that sincere belief works, how do we justly account for it? To the one, sincere beliefs raise an ontological question with tremendous political, economic, and juristic implications. To the other, those sincere beliefs are not supported by rational argument. To a third, those unsupported sincere beliefs are the basis for advocating public policy that is observably harmful to women. If we are going to pursue an observably harmful policy on behalf of a sincere belief in an ontological outlook, then what is the obligation of that sincere belief to explain the rational function of that ontological outlook? The problem with appealing to sincere belief in this case is that the sincere belief is entirely arbitrary. It is a custom-built sincere belief that has little to no rational support. To that end, if we are to accommodate sincere beliefs in such a manner, there really isn't any limit to the absurdity we could invent and implement. Additionally, how deep is that sincerity? To wit, what is the extent of this "personhood" some sincerely believe in? Is it real and genuine? The suggestions so far amount to, "No". Why do I say this? Because when presented with the equal protection consideration, advocates always retreat to complaining that this is too complicated. So is it real and genuine, or is it a personhoood that only applies to the issue it was crafted for? It would be one thing to assess the anti-abortion sincere belief in light of those effects, but we also have a fourteen-month discussion here that reflects the forty-year, post-Roe political fight: It would be one thing to assess the sincere belief in light of its effects, but the advocates refuse to discuss its potential effects. Functionally speaking, who gets to claim unsupported sincere beliefs as justification? I mean, this does lead back to an argument you're familiar with, the one about the assertion that one's rights are violated as long as another's are intact. And as a relevant consideration: If you received a gift of some value, say a hundred thousand dollars, and then found out the person who gave you that gift obtained the money through illegal means, say, a bank robbery, would you insist that since you did not rob the bank you are entitled to keep the money he gave you? And what if the person who robbed the bank did so because of a sincere but unsupported belief that the money was rightfully his? I consider this a false statement. There are plenty of people saying a woman should not have control of her own body. Some of them even get put on the GOP ticket for House and Senate. Take Ken Buck, for instance. He's included in the post you responded to. “I am pro-life,” Buck said. “While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body — it's certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body — there is another fundamental issue at stake. And that's the life of the unborn child.” (Isquith) He's saying both, that a woman should not be in control of her body because of the rights of the unborn. It's not that at some point, or anything else like that. It's one of my favorite quirks about your posts, how often you try to assert the exact opposite of reality. No, really, it's like you're not really here to actually discuss anything, just recite prescribed talking points. ____________________ Notes: Isquith, Elias. "Tea Party Senate candidate compares being pregnant to having cancer". Salon. January 15, 2014. Salon.com. January 30, 2014. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/tea_party_senate_candidate_compares_being_prengant_to_having_cancer/
Abortion is not murder, by definition. It is definitely killing, so it would be accurate to say that if a person believes that abortion is an unjust killing, that they could oppose it on purely moral grounds. However, you can't claim it has nothing to do with reproductive rights. That would be equivalent to someone opposing gay marriage on moral grounds, but claiming it has nothing to do with gay rights. Which they are; several states have laws that punish people who kill a fetus through violence directed at the mother.
You're equating the beliefs of millions of People with magical leprechauns? Not your best argument. No. The pro life position is not arbitrary. It has a long history and is rooted in thousands of years of religious teaching. Religion aside, life clearly begins at conception and the precise definition of what constitutes a human being is a philosophical question upon which reasonable people can disagree. Even that is arguable. Are you forgetting that at least half of the babies aborted are female? The majority, in many nations. Your characterization of the beliefs of pro-lifers as some arbitrary and fleeting fancy they came up with on a whim is disingenuous at best. You keep equating the views of pro-lifers with a belief in leprechauns or the ravings of a madman. You are forgetting that the idea that a fetus becomes a person only after passing thru the birth canal is no less arbitrary. Indeed, Peter Singer has argued that the right to abort a pregnancy should extend for a month or two after birth. Alright. Perhaps my statement was too strong. No reasonable person is saying that women should not be in control of their own bodies. Is that your sincere belief?
Yes this is an issue of simply decide what rights a fetus has and why. To the general christian religious conservative it is assume that a fetus has all the rights of a person because it has a soul, imbeud by the some long white bearded dude in the sky at the momment of conception. This is of course a myth, like leprechauns, there is no proof of this soul, of the bearded sky dude, etc, etc, any more then leperchauns and by edict of seperation of church at state such reasoning can't be invoked in laws. Sure we can say an embryo or fetus is alive but so is a worm or a yeast cell, "alive" and a person with all the rights of a person are two very diffrent things. I've heard secular pro-life arguements but such are rarely the beleifs of conservatives who are generally dogmatic christan thiests.
Yes, please do enlighten us since this is such a simple issue. Exactly what rights does a foetus have? For extra credit, tell us why? Succinctly, please...
(Insert Title Here) Actually, it's demonstrable. Consider this: "Republican Senate hopeful Ken Buck in Colorado explained his opposition to abortion rights by comparing pregnancy to cancer, which is why he doesn't think a woman should 'be in control of her body.'" ―No one is saying a woman should not have control of her body, but rather that at some point the rights of the unborn baby must also be considered. Really, you do this quite a bit. It's one of your defining hallmarks. Just a bit late, you come in and state the opposite of the record, without ever referring to, rebutting, or otherwise addressing that record. I always like the bit where you come out the Monday after a weekend scandal has been defused and announce the scandal like it's new. Anyway, as for the rest of it: You're ignoring the comparison that they're both unsubstantiated. Well, sort of. Well, there you go. Sincere beliefs are the reason he thinks he should be given a new trial, in order to be convicted of a lesser charge and serve less prison time. I would ask that you (A) read Blackmun's opinion for Roe v. Wade with special attention VI, in which the Court reviews the history of the abortion question, (B) find the source documents making your point that apparently nobody else has come up with in the last forty years, and thus (C) show both how your assertion is true and the Supreme Court is wrong. The reality is that LACP—life at conception personhood—is a very new standard compared to the historical record. And when it comes to the anti-abortion argument? Trying to get people to make an affirmative rational assertion in support of LACP? Well, pulling teeth is perhaps a bit wizened; convince a patient to let you stick a red-hot needle into his eye. You'll have an easier time of it than you would getting the advocates of LACP to say what their policy actually means instead of what it doesn't. Religion aside, I destroy human life every day when I clip the dead skin off my fingertips, and accidenally remove some living cells. Now here's the thing: The reason I make that point is that I'm refusing to allow this particular classic sleight of rhetoric. Life is one thing. Personhood is another. You do not get to conflate the two. Indeed, I've tried discussing personhood and its implications, but people seem to think that considering the implications of personhood is extraneous. I can't recall the number of people I've encountered in these discussions who find the idea of equal protection under the law for an unborn "person" ridiculous for being too complicated, and that's just the anti-abortion people who insist the fetus is a person. As a side note, while I can't find your contribution to that rejection of equal protection for the unborn because, frankly, there are so many damn abortion threads in recent years, I did come across a necessary update: "I predict that Ms Bei Bei Shuai (the Indiana woman whose child died shortly after being born due to her suicide by rat poison attempt) will ultimately be exonerated and her case will set a precedent in Indiana that will protect woman in the future." (Madanthonywayne, June 26, 2011) For reasons of "evidentiary rulings that would have made our case difficult to proceed", the prosecutors changed tack and charged her with criminal recklessness; her lawyer told her to plead out. Oh, that evidentiary ruling that screwed up the prosecutors? They couldn't prove their accusation that Shuai killed the baby with rat poison because they based their charges on an insufficient autopsy. In other words, they weren't ready to let go despite having no case. (As I recall, we had a cultural dispute in that discussion; again, this would not have happened in my corner of our society.) Straw man. In order for that point to carry weight, we must concede the personhood argument. Furthermore, regardless of the sex of the organisms inside the mothers, there are the mothers themselves. I can confidently say that mothers are overwhelmingly, perhaps even universally, female. Do you see the problem? You're appealing to accept a disputed thesis in order to make a point that ignores the greater number of women so that you might frame anti-abortion as a feminist issue. So you say, but can you demonstrate that? The thing is that you, like many people, are afraid to follow a logical consideration through to its conclusion. Really, what are you afraid of with that question? It is, in fact relevant. Or do you already know that, and where it's going, and just don't want to answer? You know, you're absolutely right. Wow, I'm glad we got that cleared up. Let's go have a beer, and maybe even catch a flick. I hear they're showing Browning's 1931 Dracula, with Bela Lugosi playing the overgrown fetus. No, really, dude. I mean, you know, the fetus feeds on the mother's blood via the umbilical cord. Just like Dracula. And don't bother trying to define the difference betweeen the biological delivery systems of that blood; you've already said the difference is arbitrary. Or ... would you like another shot at that anemic rubber-glue stunt you just blew? I hear more about Peter Singer from conservatives complaining about him than I do from Peter Singer or his supporters. Still, though, it's a philosophical argument, and philosophical arguments of that scale are necessarily difficult. Think about the idea of late-term abortions. When we move beyond the hyperbole of the anti-abortion movement, we find that late-term abortions are most often crises of medicine and conscience. There might come a time when I find a need to dissect his larger argument, but it means nothing to me in any effective way; it will become much more relevant when we become a euthanasia society. But to combine the two, I think back to the heart-wrenching stories from women who had late-term abortions. Like finding out late in pregnancy that the fetus suffers severe chromosomal problems. So consider that, if they did not abort, the baby is born, and how long before it dies? What are the expectations of quality of life and suffering? I don't look forward to tossing that coin, but in my considerations of euthanasia, I am uncertain how the infant's right to life plays in. Depends on your definition of reasonable, but here's a fun little side issue. • These "unreasonable" people and arguments exist. • Pro-choice must at some point address this. • The rest of anti-abortion resents the fact that pro-choice is addressing the argument, complains that, "We're not all terrorists", or whatever. ―Consequence 1: The inclusion of these unreasonable people and arguments is held not against anti-abortion, but pro-choice. ―Consequence 2: Anti-abortion advocates who disdain address of terrorism and other extremism are happy to enjoy the gains won thereby. Look, I can certainly agree with you that people like Ken Buck are unreasonable, but that also offends the anti-abortion movement. And I admit, personally, this is a bit puzzling. In what other argument do things go that way? Hence, I would like your answer to the bank robbery question. Meanwhile, yes, you have made unsubstantiated assertions about the long history and roots of religious teaching in the abortion issue and arguing that the presence or lack of a specific biological connection to another human being by which one draws sustenance from the other's blood is an arbitrary distinction. Lastly, while I would note that it's true that reasonable people can disagree, that is something of an empty statement if the disagreement stems from unreasonability. ____________________ Notes: Blackmun, J. Harry. "Opinion of the Court". Roe v. Wade. January 22, 1973. Legal Information Institute. January 30, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO Associated Press. "Bei Bei Shuai Pleads Guilty In Baby's Death". The Huffington Post. August 2, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. January 30, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/bei-bei-shuai-guilty_n_3698383.html Coll Jr., J. Peter and Linda A Rosenthal et al. "Brief of the Institute for Reproductive Health Access and Fifty-Two Clinics and Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, et al., No. 05-1382, and Motion for Leave to File Brief Out of Time in Support of Respondents in Gonzales v. Carhart, et al., No. 05-380". September 20, 2006. NIRHealth.org. January 30, 2014. http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/howwepartner/documents/amicus-brief-womens-stories.pdf
Making It Obvious: Hobby Lobby Hates AWomen Conscience, Politics, and Desperation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Betrayed? Consciencious protesters pray in solidarity with Hobby Lobby at the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps we should not be surprised: When Obamacare compelled businesses to include emergency contraception in employee health care plans, Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores, fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, the company's owners argued, forced them to violate their religious beliefs. But while it was suing the government, Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm's owners cite in their lawsuit. Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices. These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell. (Redden; boldface accent added) The underlying problem: • These drugs, products, and services are objectionable to Hobby Lobby's corporate-person conscience insofar as it should not be obliged to provide for their employees' sinful behavior. • However, these drugs, products, and services are objectionable to Hobby Lobby's corporate-person conscience insofar as it should certainly seek financial reward from investing in products that their employees should not have insured access to. One wonders about those who have gathered at the U.S. Supreme Court to pray in solidarity with Hobby Lobby. Do they, too, believe it's just fine to profit from what they would otherwise believe is sin, or have they been betrayed? It is time to acknowledge this misogynistic harassment for what it is, a desperate political ploy by supremacists who see their privilege declining. The cynical "conscience" of "American values" is laid bare. ____________________ Notes: Redden, Molly. "Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers". Mother Jones. April 1, 2014. MotherJones.com. April 1, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
Screw Huckabee on Wooing Women Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee may or may not be preparing for a presidential run. Let us hope for not: "You see, I have a concern that one of the reasons we lose battles we should win is because we wait to see whether or not the crowd is going to be with us. My question to you tonight — it's nice to see a nice, full crowd of folks here in this wonderful Point of Grace Church — but I just wonder if you were the only one who showed up tonight, would you still be ready to take on the cause? Because the fact is we don't like to do things by ourselves. We really don't. Guys like to go fishing with other men. They like to go hunting with other men. Women like to go to the restroom with other women. I don't get that. I can tell you this much: if I ever say, 'I have to go to the restroom' and some guy says, 'I'll go with you,' he ain't goin' with me. That much I know." (qtd. in Kludt) We probably should cut him a break. It is well-known that many conservative Christian communities groom females for servitude. Maybe what wins votes is that condescending charm you're supposed to use when asking a woman out on a date, or something, especially in the good faith that she will be righteously and properly screwed to his satisfaction before it's over. But even in cutting him that break, we are coming face to face with a functionally problematic divide within American cultural diversity. I mean, sure, maybe that's how it's done in Huckabee's church communities. And, if so, that ought to tell us everything we need to know about why such communities are dangerous. ____________________ Notes: Kludt, Mike. "Huckabee: Men Hunt Together, Women Go To The Restroom Together". TPM Livewire. April 9, 2014. TalkingPointesMemo.com. April 10, 2014. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-men-hunt-fish-women-restroom-together
Kicking the Tires They ... Just ... Can't ... Stop .... Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R), might be merely a state legislator in Missouri, but he can still make waves to rock boats on the national electoral scene. Laura Bassett of Huffington Post explains: A Republican state lawmaker in Missouri defended his controversial bill forcing women to have ultrasounds before abortions by comparing abortion to purchasing a new vehicle. “In making a decision to buy a car, I put research in there to find out what to do," state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R) told colleagues at a hearing on the bill Tuesday. House Bill 1613 would require an ultrasound and also triple Missouri’s mandatory waiting period for a woman seeking abortion to 72 hours. Gatschenberger suggested that his legislation would make a woman "research" her decision before having an abortion -- a move he said would "increase the odds that she will choose life for her unborn baby." The major problem with Gatschenberger's analogy, of course, is that people are not required by state law to do research before buying a car. State Rep. Stacey Newman (D) told Gatschenberger that his car analogy was "extremely offensive to every single woman sitting in here." "Do you believe that buying a car is in any way related to a pregnancy decision?" she asked. "That kind of attitude is demeaning to women, regardless of what they decide to do." Missouri lawmakers have introduced more than 30 bills this session to further regulate the state's only abortion clinic. The state already requires women to receive state-mandated counseling at least 24 hours before having an abortion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chuck knows better than ladies can: Because, you see, he is a man. There are a couple of issues here, at the very least. Two stand out prominently: (1) Once again, men know better than women what goes on in a woman's life, and need to use the law to force women to get smarter. (2) Once again, we see that these conservative men have no freaking clue what they're on about. It is even incongruous rhetorically. To the one, this is a matter of life and death, justice and murder, as the anti-abortion crowd would argue. To the other, it's akin to buying a car. Maybe before an abortion, a woman should get a good, smart man, to kick the tires a couple times for her? ____________________ Notes: Bassett, Laura. "GOP Lawmaker Compares Abortion To Buying A Car". The Huffington Post. April 9, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. April 10, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/abortion-buying-car-chuck-gatschenberger_n_5119730.html
Ummm, Tiassa will you stop trying to piss me off! When I read these posts I find myself mumbling the most obscene things under my breath.
Gaffe Rigging This is one of those days where the news only gets worse, so I find myself saying, "Oh, hey, a typo in my post that I need to fix!" So I probably shouldn't mention anything about the Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate who keeps an AEI scholar on his staff who, in turn, argues that no woman has ever been a "significant original thinker" in the history of philosophy. So I won't. Oh. Damn. Sorry. ____________________ Notes: Edwards, David. "Adviser to Texas GOP's Greg Abbott: No 'evidence' that women are 'significant thinkers'". The Raw Story. April 9, 2014. RawStory.com. April 10, 2014. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...evidence-that-women-are-significant-thinkers/
