Misogyny and the Conservative Tradition

Know your place..

South Carolina recently had a legislative dinner, where they discussed domestic violence legislation.

Usually, this would be a time to discuss the problem of domestic violence, how it can be combated. options for victims, what help there is available for victims. You know, something constructive and actually worthwhile.

It seems that South Carolina's Republican State Senator Thomas Corbin did not get the memo and seems to have forgotten that women are no longer bolted to the kitchen sink..

A Republican state senator in South Carolina called women “a lesser cut of meat” and suggested that they belonged barefoot and pregnant, the libertarian-leaning blog FITS News reports.

Chauvinist in any context, Corbin’s remarks occurred during a legislative dinner this week to discuss domestic violence legislation. Sources present at the meeting told FITS that Corbin directed his comments at fellow GOP state senator Katrina Shealy, the sole woman in the 46-member chamber.

“I see it only took me two years to get you wearing shoes,” Corbin told Shealy, who won election in 2012. Corbin, the site explains, is said to have previously cracked that women should be “at home baking cookies” or “barefoot and pregnant,” not serving in the state legislature.

“He makes comments like that all the time to everybody – including Senator Shealy,” said one legislative aide who spoke to FITS.

Indignant at Corbin’s rank sexism, Shealy asked him where he “got off” making such remarks.

“Well, you know God created man first,” a smirking Corbin replied. “Then he took the rib out of man to make woman. And you know, a rib is a lesser cut of meat.

Just think about it.. People out there, voted for this buffoon.
Have I Got a Joke for You

Bells said:
Just think about it.. People out there, voted for this buffoon.

Well, it's South Carolina. It's gotten to the point that I'm trolling an entire state:

Meanwhile, have I got a joke for you:

Q: What will make a Missouri Republican support a woman's right to govern her own body?

A: The fear of not getting laid.​

This is what passes for "family values" in Missouri:

Hicks, (Republican Representative, Missouri District 107) who said he "can totally get [the bill] and understand it," talked about his reservations with the legislation.

"There is a piece of legislation we’re actually watching, I wanna see how it turns out," Hicks said. "That's the one about father’s rights to a woman who’s pregnant with a child. I can totally get it and understand it, I just don’t know how you would do something like that. I mean bottom line, it’s still her body. How do you do something like that? I’m curious to see who says yes, who says no. I’ve been asking certain people outside the Dome what they think and so far they don’t like it. Male and female, for that matter. None of the women like that idea at all."

† † †
"I know when my wife saw it she was like, 'What?' and I was like, 'Oh,'" Hicks explained of the bill.

He said he had promised his wife that he would track the bill's progress.

"When your wife goes, 'What is this?' and it has something to do with legislation and the bedroom, you pay attention," he said.

(Daily Kos)

And you know, this is the thing: Rep. Hicks (R-MO107) is probably trying to make a joke to his conservative friends about why he's getting cold feet over anti-abortion legislation, because as much as American men have learned over the course of generations to joke about who wears the pants in the family, we also learn that we must deal with the fact that dude over there is getting laid while we aren't.

There are a number of jokes throughout history about women using their sexual appeal to manipulate men; the most famous is actually a classic play over two milennia old. We might call Aristophanes the Father of Comedy, but it's 2,400 years later and we're human civilization is still missing the point.

British comedian and historian Mark Steel once did a bit about the idea of women unionizing: "Alright, I've talked to the Sisters, and there's no way we're going to accept legs in the air!"

But as we're all aware, the thing about comedy is that it cuts both ways; Seth MacFarlane joked about misogyny and still managed to upset his female neighbors by using the phrase, "Bitches be naggin'", to describe the Academy's feelings about having that many female directors nominated for awards. For many of us, from Aristophanes to Steel and beyond, there is an aspect of sympathy about the humor; the point is to denigrate the bigotry. For others, however, no such device is acceptable.

Rep. Hicks' words don't really fall into that category; the sympathy is intended between misogynists.

But it's true: Lysistrata knocks, and Missouri Republicans, naturally, don't really want to answer the door.

And some jokes are just complicated enough to be guaranteed to fail: I don't actually think a Lysistrata Revolution is truly possible; many women do, despite the myth, enjoy having sex with men, and a paradox arises when demanding specific sexual behavior of anyone. Furthermore, it's also true that I believe intimate contact with another human being is vital to a healthy psyche, as prudes demonstrably find their sexual thrills elsewhere, such as calling themselves heterosexual, or defenders of tradition, or protectors of family values, and then spending inordinate amounts of time thinking about homosexual congress. Additionally, as we've just spent the last couple decades arguing, one does not simply wake up and decide to be homosexual. If you need a fourth, there is also the fact that I'm out of the closet as gay, so I don't have much of a stake in a Lysistrata revolution.

See all that setup? Because the punch line would be to try a strap-on; after all, women are pretty much viewed as sex toys, anyway, in our society, so instead of trying to be lesbian a Lysistrata Revolution can be viewed as masturbatory.

Which of course is silly, and the joke distracts from the underlying point about misogyny in Missouri or as a vital component of conservative political beliefs.

And they can be as "sincere" in their misogynistic beliefs as they want; it's still bigotry and unworthy of respect.

But if this is the line society gets from Missouri Republicans, really, to what degree should Show-Me wives consider taking them up on the proposition?

Lastly, I apologize for having made a liar of myself; there is no joke here. There is nothing funny about the situation in general, nor the preceding sentences in particular.


Kansas & Missouri Kossacks. "MO's Country Club Committee Meeting Goes Wrong for Republicans, Get Caught on Camera talking Choice". Daily Kos. 29 January 2015. DailyKos.com. 18 February 2015. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...publicans-Get-Caught-on-Camera-talking-Choice
Tennessee GOP Says, "Waaaaaaah!"

Hashtag WhatAboutTheMen?

No, seriously, some things are obvious, except this is Tennessee, and these are Republicans.

Or, as Samantha Lachman of Huffington Post explains:

A Republican-led Tennessee legislative committee failed to extend funding Wednesday for the state's Economic Council on Women, with some of the lawmakers asking why there isn't a similar council for men.

Okay, seriously: Who needs this one explained?

Come on, speak up. We'll ... well, we'll try to help.


Lachman, Samantha. "Tennessee GOP On Economic Council For Women: But What About The Men?" The Huffington Post. 5 March 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 5 March 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/tennessee-legislature-women-_n_6809578.html
Raping little atheist girls for their salvation..

Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast.. It brings forth the image of a group getting together to pray over a nice breakfast.. Perhaps a speaker or two.. In this instance, people pay hundreds of dollars, up to $1000 per head, for the privilege of prayers, keynote speakers talking about religion and life and all the things that conservative Christians talk about.

This year's keynote speaker was Phil Robertson.

And boy did he not disappoint.

Part of his speech was aimed at atheist. Apparently atheists cannot know right from wrong, because there is no God to tell them right from wrong.

So Phil Robertson, with his wife, son and daughter-in-law in the sold out audience, decided to explain how to get an atheist to believe in the afterlife and to finally know what is right from wrong.

Speaking at a Christian event in Florida on Friday, Robertson was apparently trying to "prove" that having no belief in the afterlife and its consequences would make any level of violence acceptable.​

The stage was set. Very very set..

Unfortunately, he wasn't about to pray for their salvation and for atheists to see the light. Oh no.


Phil Robertson had something special planned for the religious folks gathered in front of him. And that was in the form of a rape and murder fantasy, where two little girls are raped and then murdered in front of their bound father, the mother is decapitated and the father's penis is hacked off with a sharp knife.

“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”

Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’”

“If it happened to them,” Robertson continued, “they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.

I don't know about anyone else, but as an atheist, I am happy and relieved that Phil Robertson believes in his God. Because in Phil Robertson's sick and twisted mind, it is only this belief in God that ensures his child rape, murder and male genital hacking with a knife fantasies, would be a bad thing to do to someone. He seems to believe that without a belief in God, he would not know this or understand this...

What a way to gain salvation for an atheist.. Break into a man's house.. Rape and murder his little girls and his wife and slice away his penis. No, really.. What in the fuck is wrong with these people?

Never stop believing, Phil Robertson.
Last edited:
That Conservative Obsession

Well, you can tell where his mind is at.

Really, under any other circumstances, we might worry about someone who puts such effort into rape and mutilation fantasies, but, you know, he's a Christian so ... er ... um ... fill in the blank.

Suffice to say, the social conservative rape obsession isn't healthy for anyone.
FOX News: Opposing Rape Culture Is Bad Parenting

FOX News host Sean Hannity hosted what might be an annual event, when fellow host Ainsley Earhardt and Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes sat down to discuss spring break and why rape is a liberal conspiracy of some sort.

McInnes argued that liberals who promote gender equality have made women who choose to go on spring break "more vulnerable."

"I think this is a perfect example of liberals' cognitive dissonance where they say 'Everything's cool. Hey, it's spring break. People party. Women are the same as men,'" McInnes said. "When you have that stupid lie in your mind you end up making women more vulnerable. These women are not as strong as men."

"When you let them go down there, you're a terrible parent," he added. "If you let your son go down there, you're a fairly bad parent. But sons are different than daughters."

Hannity later asked McInnes whether that was a double standard.

"Of course it is," he responded. "We're different. Sorry. Equality is a myth."

Ainsley Earhardt, who traveled to Panama City, Fla. to film the spring break expose for "Hannity," told McInnes his take was "archaic."

"You're making women less safe," McInnes shouted over Earhardt. "That attitude makes women less safe when you say 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls, they're all the same.'"

"Right, boys sometimes can be worse than girls because boys are lustful," Earhardt said. "Boys will do things that they shouldn't be doing that they get away with because they don't get a reputation like a woman. That's not fair."

"Right, so drill that into your daughter and say 'You're weak. You're vulnerable. You're not a superhero. You're in danger,'" McInnes said.


You know, because boys are stronger than girls, and therefore women should be held inferior to men.

This brand of stupidity, this magnitude of hatred, this stench of human corruption, is pretty much what we have come to expect from conservatives. It helps nobody to have them come right out on the air and say it explicitly.

But, you know, some people just have a sincere belief that women are inferior to men, and that certainly should take priority over a sincere belief that rape is wrong.

Although it's true; this isn't exactly news. As Catherine Thompson points out, "little progress has been made since last year's 'Hannity' spring break investigation, when McInnes and Earhardt got into the exact same argument".

And, well, you know, these are conservatives we're talking about. Rape advocacy is just one plank in the platform.


Thompson, Catherine. "Fox Guest: Liberal Myths Are Making Spring Break Dangerous For Women". Talking Points Memo. 25 March 2015. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 25 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1EGcNsu
We Knew Tucker Was a Profanely Awful Excuse for Humanity, But ...

... his brother, Buckley is apparently even worse↱.

Buckley Carlson to Amy Spitalnick (accidental reply-all intended for Tucker Carlson): "Great response. Whiny little self-righteous bitch. 'Appalling?'
And with such an ironic name, too ... Spitalnick? Ironic because you just know she has extreme dick-fright; no chance has this girl ever had a pearl necklace. Spoogeneck? I don’t think so. More like LabiaFace."

Tucker Carlson to Amy Spitalnick: "What Bedford complained about was your tone, which, I have to agree, was whiny and annoying, and I say that in the spirit of helpful correction rather than as a criticism."

Tucker Carlson to BuzzFeed: "I just talked to my brother about his response, and he assures me he meant it in the nicest way."​

What's that? Conservative misogyny? What a surprise!

Actually, the only real surprise here would be the idea that Tucker Carlson is still relevant. Then again, that's his genius insofar as he still finds a way. Like the time msnbc gave him a show, and he used his platform to denounce San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom a Nazi for not sending his police force out to round up hispanics as suspected criminals. Or more recently, when blogger Mickey Kaus quit The Daily Caller, Carlson's website intended as an alternative to the Huffington Post, after an article was pulled because it is against site policy to criticize FOX News↱.

Keeping himself in the conversation seems to be Tucker Carlson's specialty. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean he has anything useful to say.


Gray, Rosie. "Tucker Carlson's Brother: De Blasio Spokesperson A 'Self-Righteous Bitch'. BuzzFeed. 25 March 2015. BuzzFeed.com. 25 March 2015. http://bzfd.it/1M1CLA7
It's Not That We Couldn't See This Coming ...

... but, rather, that there is always hope that conservatives will defy this sort of expectation:

A Colorado lawmaker's comments that an attack on a woman whose unborn child was cut from her womb was a "curse of God" caused by U.S. policy on abortion drew criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike on Thursday.

Gordon Klingenschmitt, a Republican member of the state House of Representatives from Colorado Springs, made the remarks on his "Pray in Jesus Name" satellite television show.

"This is the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb," said Klingenschmitt, a minister and retired U.S. Navy chaplain.

"And part of that curse for our rebellion against God as a nation is that our pregnant women are ripped open."


We've heard of this guy before↗, and it's true he has a penchant for saying insanely awful things to the effect of representing Christianity as dangerous idiocy.

And it's true that there are other Christians who participate in the public discourse by blaming tragedies on women, gays, and the fact that the United States, as a society, isn't hateful enough to satisfy God. He spends his time thinking about gay men in diapers, and figuring out how to argue that the Second Amendment is about killing liberals. And there's the bit about how being welcome in a Christian congregation ought to be a prerequisite for using a public restroom; and, you know, there are lots of people he thinks shouldn't be welcome in Christian congregations, so maybe there's a theme emerging, what with the bit about diapers and all.

While it is easy to make jokes about this sort of lunacy, remember that the people of Colorado's Fifteenth Legislative District elected him. And CO15LD exists within Colorado's Fifth Congressional District, and voters there keep electing Rep. Doug "Tar Baby" Lamborn↱. Home to the United States Air Force Academy, CO5CD is also the heart of Colorado bigotry.

What the hell is wrong with conservatives? What explains this seemingly pathological hatred of women? And if one wishes to argue the questions unfair because #NotAllConservatives, or whatever, then why the hell do those conservatives put up with it?


Coffman, Keith. "Colorado lawmaker says attack on pregnant woman 'curse of God'". Reuters. 26 March 2015. Reuters.com. 27 March 2015. http://reut.rs/1GxgwgO

Jonsson, Patrik. "What were two Republicans thinking, calling Obama 'tar baby' and 'boy'?" The Christian Science Monitor. 3 August 2011. CSMonitor.com. 27 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1xFxQyu
One reason that chauvinistic men may appear to be on the rise, is connected to the dual standard. Women are not called chauvinistic, if they say bigoted things about men. If a woman calls a man a caveman, this is no different from a male calling a woman a toy. But only the women will be justified and protected by PC. The dual standard is creating a backlash because what is good or evil for one, should also be good or evil for both if they are equal. If they are really equal, one is cheating. If the cheating is needed they are not equal.

If you look at the quota system, technically, it is racist and sexist, because it decides by the color of the skin and/or the sex and not the content of the character. Character is color and gender neutral; individual. It is a law based on race and sex; legalized racism and sexism. The dual standard defines itself in a way so a different set of rules apply. Men sense they are not dealing with reason, or even fairness, and some decide they should be able to play that way also, since they are being accused of this by the dual standard.

In relationships, men, more often, abuse their female spouse with physical force. Women prefer to use emotional or psychological pressure; nagging. Both are abusive, but only one is regulated by law. Picture if a woman nagging a male, was equated as being the same as a male hitting at women. The dual standard would have to go away, and the abuse would go down.
Wellwisher said:
If a woman calls a man a caveman, this is no different from a male calling a woman a toy.


caveman: A pejorative response by a female to perceived behavior on the part of the male.

toy: A pejorative response to a female derived from behavior on the part of the male.​

And there's your answer to #WhatAboutTheMen.

Picture if a woman nagging a male, was equated as being the same as a male hitting at women.

That would be incredibly stupid.
As Answers Go, That Certainly Counts

If the question really is what the hell is wrong with conservatives, the answer apparently does not include whatever counts as the malady affecting Colorado state Rep. Gordon Klinginschmitt (R-15).

The leader of the House Republicans on Monday stripped Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt from one of his two committee posts, saying the lawmaker's "curse of God" comments about a woman whose fetus was ripped from her womb were in "poor taste" and "insensitive."

Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso said he removed Klingenschmitt from the Health, Insurance and Environment Committee because he believed "there needed to be some kind of disciplinary action."

"This is one of the few tools I have in my toolbox, and this seemed like the appropriate course of action," said DelGrosso, a Loveland Republican.

Klingenschmitt, a Colorado Springs Republican, said he believes taking him off the committee was unfair, but on Monday he announced he was suspending his "television preaching ministry" for six weeks, saying it has "overshadowed" his job as a state lawmaker.


Yeah, that certainly counts for something. Indeed, the situation has Mr. Klingenschmitt's notice:

"I was so angry I forgot to be compassionate," he said. "My words were wrong. My tone was wrong. My choice of scripture was wrong. Everything I did about that report was wrong, and honestly I apologize to you, Michelle Wilkins. I apologize to you, the viewers. I apologize to the voters and constituents in Colorado Springs."

In an e-mail, he protested being bounced from his committee.

"I am literally being punished for quoting unpopular Bible verses in my Sunday church, or interpreting the Old Testament differently than Leader DelGrosso interprets it, during my private ministry outside the Capitol. Is that suddenly a crime?" he wrote in the e-mail.

Nor did the mixed messges in his responses go unnoticed. Mr. DelGrosso explained, as artfully as possible, "As an elected official, I'm an elected official 24/7 whether I like it or not."

Good answer.

And, yes, at least one constituent has apparently contacted the Colorado Secretary of State's office in order to find out how to recall Rep. Klingenschmitt. Stay tuned.


Bartels, Lynn. "Klingenschmitt loses committee post, suspends ministry for six weeks". The Denver Post. 30 March 2015. DenverPost.com. 31 March 2015. http://dpo.st/1ahtBPh
The dual standard of feminism, may be the reason for misogamy. It is only sexist if a male insults a woman with stereo types. It is not considered sexist the other way around. The same is true of racism, only whites can be racist, while the same behavior with blacks is not racist.

Based on inference, a dual standard either means women feel the need for this golf handicap, because men are better, or if men and women are both the same, women like to cheat. It is possible this female insecurity and/or cheating is not new, with misogamy an historical counter measure to level the field.

Should feminist politicians be subject to the same sexists laws if men feel insulted?
Wellwisher said:
The dual standard of feminism, may be the reason for misogamy.

Oh, please, do go on. This I gotta see.

What is the dual standard of feminism?

What does it have to do with hatred of marriage and reproduction?

Or are you just failing to pull self-conscious meta-irony by invoking "misogamy" while making a chicken-or-egg argument?
The dual standard of feminism, may be the reason for misogamy. It is only sexist if a male insults a woman with stereo types. It is not considered sexist the other way around. The same is true of racism, only whites can be racist, while the same behavior with blacks is not racist.
Er... no.

Based on inference, a dual standard either means women feel the need for this golf handicap, because men are better, or if men and women are both the same, women like to cheat.
Male golfers also have handicaps among themselves.

Should feminist politicians be subject to the same sexists laws if men feel insulted?
Er... they are, aren't they?

Which sexist laws specifically apply one standard to women and another to men? Examples?
GOP state senator Larry Stutts attempted to repeal Rose’s Law, a 1999 measure to protect new mothers by requiring a two-day hospital stay after giving birth. Under the law, mothers with complicated births stay in the hospital for four days.

The law was inspired by the death of Rose Church, an Alabama nurse who died of post-natal complications after her physician sent her home just 36 hours post-birth, without performing necessary tests.

Her physician was Larry Stutts.

Stutts, who made the transition from medicine to politics after defeating his state Senate opponent by 70 votes in 2014, recruited six other GOP lawmakers — all white males — to repeal Rose’s Law, which he denounced as an “Obamacare-style law.” The reaction nationally — and more important, locally — was scathing. The Alabama Political Reporter captured the sentiments of most observers with an editorial reading, “Stutts is arrogant and careless and now we know he is evil.”​

That's right. You read that correctly.

The first Bill Larry Stutts presented tried to repeal a law that was enacted and voted in unanimously, to provide women with 48 hours of hospital care after birth, so that blood tests which can pick up serious problems and post natal bleeding can be monitored in normal births and longer for complicated births.. A law that was named after Stutts patient, who after her death resulted in Stutts being sued for malpractice.. He then tried to compare the law to Obamacare to sell it to the other Republican senators who cosigned his bill.

Bill Britt went into a bit more detail of the extent Stutts went to to try to get away with this in a political opinion piece:

Newly-minted State Senator Dr. Larry Stutts (R-Sheffield) a OB/GYN wants to keep the government out of the exam room, especially when it comes to the field of women's health; an area in which he would seem to be qualified.

Many would agree with him that most medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, without fear of the government meddling. But, we also want to keep our mothers, sisters, daughters and wives out of the morgue.

In proposing SB289, Stutts failed to inform his fellow Republican Senators of his intimate knowledge of the bill he hopes to over turn. SB289 would eliminate the key components of “Rose's Law” which was passed in 1999, after Rose Church died under Stutts’ care.

Church, a 36-year-old registered nurse from Haleyville gave birth to a healthy, baby girl on December 1, 1998. After 36 hours, she was released from the hospital, only to return 36 hours later due to sessile bleeding. She was given four pints of blood. She was again discharged only to die approximately 36 hours later of a heart attack, according to court and a 1999 report by the Tuscaloosa News. Her autopsy revealed that Church had placental tissue still inside her womb, 11 days after she delivered her daughter Logan Rose.

Stutts was her doctor and named in the wrongful death suit filed by her husband, Gene Church.

The suit states, among other things, that Rose Church was released from the hospital despite the fact that she “was suffering from placental accreta and continued to display persistent tachycardia.”

Her husband told the Tuscaloosa News in 1999, that if the legislation had been law in 1998, his wife would have stayed in the hospital for 48 hours and the blood tests would have shown she was having problems before she was discharged.

Rose’s Law gives women a legal right to remain in the hospital for 48 hours after a normal live birth and 96 hours if the birth presents a complication.

Stutts wants to do away with this law named after his patient but he kept his relationship with the Church family a secret from his Senate colleagues.


Rose's Law was passed to protect other women from the fate of one of his patients, yet, he used Obamacare as a cover for his past deeds.

Stutts sold his bill to Senators comparing it to Obamacare. The President may be the State Republican's punching bag, but in this instance, it was not a punching bag, but the body bag that contained the remains of Rose Church that was behind this act.

Stutts is arrogant and careless and now we know he is evil

The Bill also repeals a requirement for doctors to inform their patients if mammograms display any dense breast tissue, which can be an early sign of cancer and can hide possible tumors in the breast.

Stutts is the epitome of a misogyny that is so evil and so self serving, that it is, for lack of a better term, vile. How self serving?

Senator and Doctor Larry Stutts does not believe physicians should notify women in writing if they have dense breast tissue or that they are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer.

Stutts also does not think women need to stay in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after giving birth.

Right now, if doctors find a patient has dense breast tissue after conducting a mammogram, the doctor is required to send a letter to the patient. The letter must notify the patient they have dense breast tissue and that they are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer.

Senator Stutts wants to do away with that requirement.

“It's something I deal with on a daily basis,” Stutts said. “The days that I'm in the office, I probably average sending 10 people for mammogram's, so I am very familiar with the follow up of mammogram's, very familiar with what should be done."

Senator Stutts also wants to repeal the current law that requires insurance maternity coverage provide a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for a vaginal delivery, and 96 hours for a cesarean section.

“There's no reason it should be mandated,” Stutts said. “If you have knee surgery, do you think there should be a law for how long you stay in the hospital after knee surgery?”


Several other Alabama senators are backing this bill, and all of them have gotten significant funding from the Medical Association of the State of Alabama.

The MASA has spent more than $175,000 on the six senators backing this bill. The medical association has made campaign contributions ranging from $5,000 for Senator Bill Hightower, to more than $80,000 for Senator J.T. Waggoner.

We reached out to the Medical Association to see where they stand on this bill, but they have yet to respond.

Senator Larry Stutts says the bill is about getting rid of mandates and "emotional legislation that doesn't improve care.

Note that last sentence. This Bill was personal and went directly to the heart of the law that came about because of his negligence as a doctor, a negligence that saw someone die and saw him sued for malpractice.

I don't think vile is the word. Stutts is just a misogynistic arsehole.

Once it became known that Stutts was directly involved in the reasons behind Rose's Law, the uproar was of course immense. He was forced to withdraw the Bill when it all came out and people discovered he was a self serving arsehole who withheld information about his involvement in Rose Church's death and why that law came about and who was out for revenge against the name of the woman who died in his care. His co-sponsors withdrew their support.
Last edited:
Putting Government Between Doctor and Patient

My senior year in high school, I started each day for a semester with a Bioethics class. And, truth told, as much respect as I might have for Jesuits, a Catholic high school is no place for so poor a notion of bioethics.

My teacher was a woman looked upon by the school community as a hero. Her pregnancy diagnosed as anencephalitic, she chose to carry to term, anyway. That choice nearly killed her. Thus, she was a hero.

That said, she wasn't a very nice person. Whatever. Says me, right?

But I do remember Mrs. C at times like this:

A Texas Democrat on Thursday called this year’s state legislature the most misogynistic she’s seen in her 21 years as a state representative, following a house vote that would have ended legal abortion care for pregnant Texans whose fetuses have medical anomalies that aren’t survivable outside the womb.

“Women are leaders of their families, whether some men in this room do not recognize that,” said state Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) in a pointed speech criticizing her male Republican colleagues for not supporting a bill that would expand access to breastfeeding and instead focusing on limiting access to legal abortion care.

Farrar took to the microphone after a debate about how best to retool the state’s social safety net turned to abortion, with a freshman Tea Party lawmaker attempting to insert an abortion ban into a bill concerning the bureaucratic operations of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) put forward an amendment that would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, even if a fetus “has a severe and irreversible abnormality,” effectively forcing families with wanted, but unsustainable pregnancies to carry to term at the behest of the state and against the advice of their doctors or their own wishes.

Schaefer said, during debate over his amendment, that suffering is “part of the human condition, since sin entered the world.”


It should be noted that Schaefer's amendment passed, but the whole bill was pulled by its sponsor after Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) of San Antonio objected via point of order. Additionally, some Republicans found the amendment excessive; they did not so much worry about the pregnant women as much as the idea of putting what Gatesville Republican Rep. J. D. Sheffield called "the heavy, blunt hand of government" between doctor and patient. That would be Dr. J. D. Sheffield, to be specific.

We might suggest this sort of misogyny is some sort of populism, though that would only excuse Rep. Schaefer at best on the grounds that he is too stupid to know a bad idea when he sees it. This is the problem with the populism: It's not gonna happen. This fetus is not meant to the world. Forcing a woman to carry to term can be exceptionally dangerous. But you don't care, do you? You don't care about the danger to your fellow human being. What you care about is some perverse notion of getting your own soul square with God by causing harm, trying to buy your own damn ticket to Heaven. So you don't care what you're doing to that pregnant woman, or women in general. And that's why your craven attempt to cajole the Almighty is misogyny. And it's also why the rest of us aren't surprised. Because it's always ... about ... you.

And I always tell this sort of religious person to pray the atheists are correct, else I will see them in Hell.

But, hey, you know, that's why we call it populism; it is intended to threaten a majority of the population just because they are women. Or, by its other name, this is American conservatism.

And, you know, of course it's Texas. Kansas is too busy picking fights with the gays while wrecking their economy. Louisiana is too distracted by Jindal Dreams and Stranger Things. South Carolina continues to do its staid part. Only Texas can juggle Jade Tinfoil, re-education camps, and finding new ways to hurt women all at once. So of course it's fucking Texas°.


° No, really, think about it: Texas is the state where they make dead women carry pregnancies.

Works Cited:

Grimes, Andrea. "Texas House Proposal Would Force People to Carry to Term Non-Viable Fetuses". RH Reality Check. 24 April 2015. RHRealityCheck.org. 15 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1EaFnS1
Five Words

Forcing children to carry pregnancies.

Here's one more word for you: Texas.

Texas House lawmakers are expected to consider a measure as early as Wednesday that could be used to protect child welfare service providers who want to force kids into discredited gay conversion therapy programs. The bill also protects providers who deny minors access to birth control or abortions.

(Liebelson; boldface accent added)

I mean, come on.


A question does arise: Is there really any context by which they're not taking it out on children with this sort of stunt?

We call this religious freedom? Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is grotesque. Forcing women to carry doomed pregnancies is cruel. Forcing a dead woman to carry a pregnancy is insane. But forcing children to carry pregnancies? What the hell is wrong with these people? Why protect such atrocious brutality?


Liebelson, Dana. "Texas Bill Could Protect Welfare Providers Who Force Kids Into Gay Conversion Therapy". The Huffington Post. 13 May 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 18 May 2015. http://huff.to/1RUM6ds
NRA to the Rescue ... of Intimate Abusers ....

Then again, it's Louisiana:

Kim Sport, chairwoman of the United Way of Southeast Louisiana Public Policy Committee, and of the state's domestic violence prevention commission, said she was especially disappointed the NRA's opposition affectively squashed a provision that would expand the definition of domestic abuse victims.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

A law passed last year would ban those convicted of domestic abuse battery -- even as a misdemeanor -- from owning a firearm.

"It is a sad place in Louisiana where we allow a special interest group to say who will or will not be a victim of a certain crime under our statutes," Sport said.

Opponents at an April 29 hearing on the bill said "dating partner" can be too broadly interpreted; the 10-year firearm prohibition could apply to a much larger group of people. It might apply, one witness said, to someone who has been on a single date. Another opponent said the proposed law would invite false accusations.


Because, you know, you gotta give a freebie on the first date. And, you know, those dastardly women and their false accusations.

See, the thing is that we're still going about this all wrong; instead of extending firearms laws to cover certain misdemeanors, those misdemeanors ought to be elevated to felonies. But we still get back to free punches on the first date and thosee dastardly women with their false accusations.

Whatever works, you know. It's the NRA. Of course they want some of the most dangerous criminals in our society to have guns. It helps sell the fear, which in turn helps sell guns.

And that's their raison d'être.

In the end, it's simply a matter of priorities. The NRA's priorities are clear. And so are those of Louisiana Republicans.


Lane, Emily. "Here's what the NRA got stripped from Louisiana's anti-domestic violence bill". The Times-Picayune. 18 May 2015. NOLA.com. 19 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1EWdKN8
Think of the not yet conceived children of rapist, people..

Sperm are people too..

A Republican state senator in South Carolina is filibustering a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because he opposes the bill's exceptions for rape and incest victims.

South Carolina State Sen. Lee Bright (R) started his filibuster on the Senate floorThursday, postponing the vote on the abortion bill as well as another bill that would repair the state's roads. He argued before his colleagues that rape is not a good enough excuse to exempt women from the abortion ban.

"We're not talking about a woman that was assaulted that goes into the emergency room -- which, I would argue, that child still has a right," Bright said. "We're talking about somebody that had 20 weeks."

Bright is not living up to his name.

One could argue that he either has no knowledge or understanding of the human reproductive process, or he is stupid enough to believe that once a rapist squirts his sperm into his victim's vagina, that sperm instantly forms a child.

Think about his statement for a minute:

"We're not talking about a woman that was assaulted that goes into the emergency room -- which, I would argue, that child still has a right,"

If a woman is raped and goes to the emergency room, they would give her the morning after pill or Plan B to prevent a pregnancy. In short, it would prevent the sperm that would at that time be traveling up through her cervix and into her uterus, from fertilising an egg.

The insidiousness of his statement cannot be dismissed. To protect the sperm of the rapist, to try to ensure that that sperm is able to fertilise an egg in his victim and possibly render her pregnant.. This is the child of which he speaks.

Bright does not believe that rape victims, or victims of incest, should be doing their utmost to prevent themselves from falling pregnant to their rapists. In his eyes, he is saving these children, children who are not even conceived yet. The "pre-born".

Not content with that, Bright appears to believe that rape victims and women sit there for 20 weeks, thinking up excuses for getting an abortion after 20 weeks.

Bright said he worried that women would falsely claim they were raped in order to qualify for the exemption. “After 20 weeks if you wanted to get an abortion you could go and say you were raped and you could have the abortion," he said. "You wouldn’t be denied. There's no police report."

South Carolina's House of Representatives passed a version of the same bill earlier this year, sponsored by State Rep. Wendy Nanney (R). That bill included exceptions for the life of the mother, but none for rape and incest victims or severe fetal anomalies. Senate Republicans tried to include the latter exceptions in amendments to their bill, before the whole thing was blocked by Bright. They believed it would make the bill more palatable to moderates.

“I’m not comfortable with the exceptions," State Sen. Larry Grooms (R) told colleagues. "But if we can’t save them all, let’s save what we can."

Forget the fact that many women are not able to access an abortion prior to 20 weeks due to cost and such services being unavailable in their area, forget the fact that some women are unaware they are even pregnant or find out much later, meaning such a decision has to be made later, forget the fact that it is often only after 20 weeks that severe foetal abnormalities are discovered, forget the fact that rape victims are sometimes unable to cope with what happened to them, let alone the horror of realising that they are pregnant from the rape, and all the horrors in between, such as maternal health issues, Bright appears to think that women sit there for 20 weeks, thinking up excuses to have an abortion after 20 weeks, because it is such a cool and fun thing to do. Just because..

Bright held a press conference Tuesday morning with a group of women who were conceived from rape. He said he is willing to jeopardize his GOP colleagues' careers in order to block the bill from passing with rape and incest exceptions.

"If these babies aren't allowed to survive, these politicians shouldn't be allowed to survive their elections," he said.

Nice. If rapists cannot force their victims to carry their baby, then his fellow Republicans who did not agree with him should not be allowed to survive their elections. Autonomy of one's body? Choice? What's that?

Bells said:
If rapists cannot force their victims to carry their baby, then his fellow Republicans who did not agree with him should not be allowed to survive their elections. Autonomy of one's body? Choice? What's that?

Can I tell you a joke?

Okay, okay, I know that sounds crass, but work with me for a moment, here.

So it just happens―you know, sometimes that's just how it turns out―that right before I saw your post I read a weird bit from a conservative trying to explain how diversity is what makes the Republican Party so attractive. Of course, as you're aware, most Americans would laugh themselves silly at that notion.

But your post actually helps me see what my bigoted neighbor means when he praises diversity among Republicans.

See, think of it this way: In Kansas, they pull legal protections for LGBT; Indiana installed legal protections for discrimination; Gov. Jindal has put the Kansas into the Indiana of Louisiana by using an executive order to mimic what Indiana wanted after his legislature decided it wasn't a good idea.

Creativity. A plethora of ways to hurt people. It is true: Republican malice is diverse.

So think of it this way: In Texas, not only do they want to force women to carry doomed pregnancies, they want to force dead women to carry pregnancies, and now they're getting ready to extend legal protections to those who force children to carry pregnancies.

Diversity? South Carolina has come up with a new way to do its part.

They want to force rape survivors to become pregnant. You know, in the name of forcing her to have the baby that results. Because, you know, Jesus.

Or maybe Jesus is just an excuse. I think the real problem here is that it's South Carolina. That is to say, there is nothing new about misogyny as a Palmetto virtue.

You know, here's another fun contradiction: What a dick. No, really, think about it. In the Universe of insults, there are some things one would rather be. In American society, it is white, Christian, and above all else, male. There was a time when I was asking around as to what word was the male equivalent of "bitch" with all its seething hatred, and the best anyone could come up with was to elevate the word "jerk" to a newly-specialized context despite generally lacking a sex or gender connection.

But this is the thing: Sen. Bright is such a barnacle that the context of insult inverts to a certain degree.

The answer, by the way, was cocksucker, which used to be a fighting word. It is unclear what's up with that, now, since faggot is also up in the air. But normally we are at least aware of a gender-specific denigration about calling a man a dick; indeed, it seems strange that men would call each other dicks because, in fact, doing so denigrates our penises by casting them as something worth denouncing. See, when a man calls another man a dick, is he denouncing the dick, or denouncing the man as the one thing he loves more than anything else in the world?

But to call Sen. Bright a dick is to flat out denigrate the penis.

The thing is that if we want to strike after men the way "bitch" insults and is intended to denigrate women, we would simply call them "rapists" instead. And in that, we wouldn't be comparing men to another species, which is part of the intended denigration about calling a woman a bitch; rather, we would simply be elevating a common male behavior to become defining.

And looking at it like that? Well, it's hardly surprising that Sen. Bright wants to lend a hand to his fellows.