Congress, Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics, Religion, Supreme Court

The Right’s War on Women

Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger

 
I don’t think Barry Goldwater would recognize Conservatism or his Republican Party if he was alive today. Conservatism used to mean belief in safe and sound economic spending and freedom for all from governments getting too large and too restrictive on personal freedoms. Recently we have seen Republicans offer up a brand new and dangerous definition of rape in an attempt to restrict abortions and to restrict government money being used to pay for them. Now we are seeing another Republican attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives under the guise of ending the alleged use of Federal funds to pay for abortions.

A recent article outlined the legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Spence of Indiana to eliminate the entire $327 million dollar budget for Title X. Title X is a program that provides funding for women’s health and family planning costs. “The measure would eliminate all $327 million in funding for Title X, a family planning program that began 40 years ago under President Richard Nixon. And while Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the program, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services. The money is to be used for noncontroversial family planning services, mostly for low-income families.”

Rep. Spence and his fellow Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it receives millions from Title X funds to assist women in their family planning and health matters. In order to try to end abortions without testing the strength of Roe v. Wade in the courts, the sponsors and backers of this bill don’t care if low-income women suffer by not getting the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these same legislators also backed the repeal of the Affordable Health Care act which would also assist low-income women get affordable health care.

The proposed legislation would end all monies from Title X and the effects of those funds drying up could be catastrophic for women. “The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL said the legislation would lead to more unwanted pregnancies by cutting funding for contraceptives. “The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy. Americans will not stand for this blatant hypocrisy.” ‘

Is it just me or do I detect a pattern here?  What do these mostly male Republicans have against women? I was thinking of writing an article asking when America will have its own “Egyptian” moment, but maybe I should ask when will American Women have their “Egyptian” moment?

Source: Raw Story

Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger

360 thoughts on “The Right’s War on Women”

  1. rafflaw:

    That’s what I was thinking re: ACORN. I’m looking for info.

    I agree – but doesn’t the House control funding??

  2. Stamford,
    I am not one of the scholarly lawyers, but didn’t the Acorn defunding bill survive an appellate court test? I will have to check back on that. Besides, I don’t think this bill will make it through the Senate.

  5. I found this paragraph from Lottkatz’s post from The Raw Story particularly interesting:

    “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called the measure a bill of attainder, a “legislative enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that’s identifiable,” and decreed it unconstitutional.

    “I challenge anyone to say how this isn’t a bill of attainder,” Nadler said on the House floor. “This amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass.”

    Any of the scholarly lawyers here want to take a stab at this? 🙂

  6. (By the way raff … another good thread with well over 300 posts … our guest bloggers know how to do their jobs!)

  7. “Coercion in forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy is as vile as coercion in forcing a woman to have a pregnancy.” (Buddha)

    Yes … I like that one … gonna put it in my arsenal of “Conservative/Repuiblican Rape Room Techniques and Procedures”

  10. rafflaw

    “Stamford,

    Nice article! Did the study look into any other body parts??”

    —————————————————————-

    Lol – I am so not going there … I just finished lunch and since it was so good, I’d like to keep it!

  11. Randall Terry, I mean Craig,

    I see this bears repeating:

    Funny how anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-women types whine that pro-choice opponents use fear …

    “By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.”

    Nah, nothing to see here, folks.

    ——————————————-

    And thy name is hypocrite … LMAO!

  12. Oh, I’m laughing with or without clicking the link and I’ve seen aborted fetuses before. I have a very high threshold of shock value. Even if I did jump through your lil’ hoop? I’d still be laughing because I’m laughing at you, “Christian Law Journal”. God isn’t American and Jesus didn’t write the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. They need to, indeed are required to, keep out of our legal system. Just like any other religion.

    If you’re against abortions? Don’t get one. Problem solved. But you should keep your religious dogma off of women’s bodies and their choices regarding their health. Coercion in forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy is as vile as coercion in forcing a woman to have a pregnancy.

  14. Christian Law Journal.

    Well there’s your problem right there. We have a secular government in this country. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    That includes Christianity.

    “Christian Law” is as big an oxymoron in this country as “Sharia Law”.

  16. Craig,

    Here are my two questions again.

    1. Do you consider women who are alive to be “living persons?”

    2. Do you think that if a pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk that the woman should have the right to try to save her own life?

    Your response: “On to your question: I wonder why abortion is the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger? I happen to think medicine is a wonderful gift from God and doctors are more creative than just opting to murder babies. Medical advancement comes in the face of difficult scenarios. Why would you want to use the scenario of a woman’s life being in danger as your “proof” case?”

    All you needed to do was to give me a “yes” or a “no” answer to each of my questions–but you weren’t willing to do that.

    BTW, I said nothing about abortion being the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in question, did I? Why did you infer that I had? I am pro-choice. I am not “pro-abortion.” Please don’t assume that I am.

  18. “How can they really love, or even sexually satisfy a women when they fear them psychologically? ” Mike Spindell
    ===================================================

    Mike Spindell you sound like an exceptional soul and I think your wife(or S.O.) is one hell of a lucky woman….

  20. Funny how anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-women types whine that pro-choice opponents use fear …

    “By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.”

    Nah, nothing to see here, folks.

Comments are closed.