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
BIL,
“Maybe because your opinion of what constitutes “death” is based on a fairy tale, not science”
Really? Was that supposed to be an argument? When is death a fairy tale death vs a scientifically defined death?
The respect I have towards all life has nothing to do with my religion. I don’t subscribe to any religion.
If we can keep a fetus alive via artificial support is it not viable and therefore protected IAW the holding in Roe v Wade?
StamfordLiberal,
“A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation.”
That’s not true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html
“Because this bright, beguiling toddler was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation”
Stanford Liberal: It does mine to, but once Boehner replaced Nancy Pelosi, it was sure to happen. The republicans have made cutting family planning services and eliminating abortion a priority. Some states have fast tracked anti-abortion legislation.
Swarthmore mom
“Stanford Liberal: The republicans have declared war on Planned Parenthood as they did on ACORN. I think Planned Parenthood is in a better position to defend themselves but who knows what will happen if they are able to severley cut their funding.”
Thankfully, PP has more monetary resources than ACORN. But, pulling critical government funding will still deliver a severe blow. It is moves like this that make my blood boil.
—————————————————————
Christian Conservative:
“You don’t like money going to subsidize business, I don’t like money going to subsidize death. You know that some of that money gets used for abortions.”
The government does not pay for elective abortions already. Only in cases where the Medicaid recipient’s life is in danger. You can put that stinky red herring away now.
—————————————————————
ShireNomad:
A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival. Most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of gestation. In very rare cases are they performed after said 12 weeks, and in those instances, it is usually for a variety of factors including, but not limited to chromosomal abnormalities or the fetus is sucking the life blood out of the mother and is jeopardizing her life. Until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the fetus cannot be a separate, living and breathing being.
—————————————————————-
Paul Thomson:
Well said. Allow me to add that since a very large number of first pregnancies end in miscarriage, I’d say God is the King of Abortions.
Just briefly, let’s take the notion of personhood to it’s logical conclusion.
All fetuses are persons with the rights and privileges associated with that status. That being the case, the death of ANY fetus is a potential homicide. Therefore, every miscarriage, every death of every fetus-person, shall be ruled upon by a coroner to determine whether that death was caused by someone else, or can be ruled either accidental or an “act of God”.
Any pregnant woman who takes a drink, does any drug, engages in behavior deleterious to the fetus-person, can be held liable. Then we can look into other risky behaviors and what punishments might be necessary. A woman who owns cats might be held liable for toxoplasmosis. And so on.
Shall we really bring on the pregnancy police? I’m sure the Christian Taliban in this country would have no problem with that, but really, the fetus-as-person argument is just ridiculous.
BelgianBrain,
Are you going to give credit where it is due for that joke?
Some of us here know almost every George Carlin routine by heart.
“Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.”
Sound advice that applies to so many of the comments on this site.
question….
I know there is a separate Federal health insurance plan for our representatives and the families of our representatives. Does this plan cover abortion? Any type of birth control? Viagra? Mammagrams? Pap smears? Male checkups for testicular cancer?
Any of the things these ‘reps’ want taken out of the healthcare plans for citizens?
And what are they trying to ram through in the dark that this public fight around abortion is so important now???
From Woosty: “Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.”
And neither do we. Acts that are undeniably murder may still be excused by reasons of justifiable homicide or necessity. If the situation the woman has been placed in is truly atrocious, then I excuse an abortion on THOSE grounds, NOT by pretending a child is not really a child.
Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.
From Lottakatz: “With all respect due, no, it doesn’t. The debate in law always comes back to the Forth Amendment regarding privacy. That is the basis for Roe v Wade.”
And it was notably NOT the basis of Planned Parenthood v. Casey 15 years later, which instead upheld the right to an abortion based on stare decisis (that is, “we prefer not to change our minds, lest we be seen as fallible and inconsistent”).
That said, yes, the Roe court said that abortion is an act covered under privacy… provided the fetus is not a person.
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.” – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-57 (1973)
And if the fetus is still not a person until 24 hours after it leaves the womb, then the sorcerer’s bargain is also an act of privacy, especially if it saves the woman’s life. (If you prefer, make it an actual medical procedure where the woman needs a blood donation, and there is a handy package containing her blood type right there!) If we say the fetus has no provable personhood until it speaks and proves its intelligence, or until it is 13 and arguably able to survive without support, or at some other point of your choosing, why, the woman could practice being a mother for a while, THEN decide she has not the time or resources to raise a child, and so exercise her privacy and liberty by sending the overgrown fetus to a doctor for euthanasia.
But regardless, under Roe, absolutely the debate comes back to “is the fetus a person?” Arguing that privacy is the only factor forgets the key caveat I quoted.
I remind you, by the way, of another Supreme Court case where personhood was considered. And the Court found in Dred Scott that, no, the black man was not a person with rights, and that the government did not have the power to impose its beliefs otherwise (which had no basis outside the morals of those pesky Republicans) to deprive an honest slaveowner of their property, or their right to use it as he saw fit. (Like Roe, a 7-2 decision.)
George McKenna has spoken far better than I could on this subject, and I highly recommend his essay. I’ll close by quoting from it: “[Stephen A. Douglas] ruled out of order any debate on the morality of slavery. That was a ‘religious’ question. It had no place in a constitutional debate, and we had no right to judge other people in such terms. In one of his debates with Lincoln in 1858, Douglas scolded his opponent for telling the people in the slave states that their institution violated the law of God. ‘Better for him,’ he said, to cheers and applause, ‘to adopt the doctrine of “judge not lest ye be judged.”‘” http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/abortion/abortion.htm
Maybe because your opinion of what constitutes “death” is based on a fairy tale, not science, and that your moralizing is simply an attempt to force your religion upon those who may not share your religion by force of law in contravention of the 1st Amendment.
As to business? We shouldn’t subsidize business in the form of bailouts. It’s simply corporate welfare. Your question, however, poses a false dichotomy. A woman’s health and choices regarding her health are not the equivalent of a business.
I am just curious, why is OK to give money to this but not to business?
You don’t like money going to subsidize business, I don’t like money going to subsidize death. You know that some of that money gets used for abortions.
We should have to check mark a box on our 1040 form:
subsidize business [ ]
subsidize death [ ]
you get to pick if where you want your tax dollars to go.
oops severly.
Conservatives Suggest Planned Parenthood May Be Criminal Enterprise
I suggest that conservatives may be moralizing assholes attempting to force their religious beliefs upon our populace by force of law in contravention of the 1st Amendment. If conservatives want to moralize, they should go to church. Ours is a secular government and it is secular by design. The issues around Planned Parenthood are related to a woman’s health and her choices about her health. If her choices offend your conservative religious ideals? Too damn bad. If you want a theocracy? Move to Saudi Arabia.
Oh, that’s right. They don’t use the same book of magical and wishful thinking as your lot do! What is a theocrat to do?
I suggest you keep your “morals” at home and church and off the bodies of women who may not share your religious beliefs and/or delusions.
Stanford Liberal: The republicans have declared war on Planned Parenthood as they did on ACORN. I think Planned Parenthood is in a better position to defend themselves but who knows what will happen if they are able to severley cut their funding.
Will they still at least have the right to vote?
I was unemployed and uninsured for two years. As a woman in her late 40’s, regular OB/GYN check ups and annual mammograms are vital to my over all health. I couldn’t afford the services of a private physician, so I went to my local Planned Parenthood who provided me with the health care specific to my needs. I thank goddess for PP during that time!
Contrary to the lies the GOP would like people to believe, PP is not an abortion factory, as the article Elaine M posted correctly points out. Abortions represent a small fraction of the services it provide. But the Right does not allow facts to get in the way of its need to destroy the rights and lives of women, particularly women who rely on entities like PP. Defunding PP and other entities that provide women with comprehensive reproductive health care is nothing more than a direct assault on women, our health and our rights. It seeks to ensure that women are firmly relegated to second class status whose only purpose in life is to be brood mares. For a party that consistently whines about limited government, it certainly has no problem with government interfering with my rights, my privacy and my health.
I’m glad this issue is getting so much attention. It does not make any sense that a party so against abortion would support a bill that would create a situation that will lead to increased demand for abortions.
Everytime I read a response to similar blog posts I am appalled at the responses coming from these “pro-life” people.
The more attention we can bring to these issues the more the inhumanity of these people will be exposed.
Now there’s a show stopper.
Have you noticed that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?
Yikes! Bonnie, the problem with the Lysistrata soln is that it would put all those young boys in Washington and everywhere else at risk!
Shirenomad:A sorcerer visits the maternity ward of a hospital, going from new mother to new mother, and offering them any or all of the following:
– A job they would not otherwise be able to have.
– Loads of money.
– Freedom to enjoy her life without obligation.
– Never having to see the father (who is abusive) again.
– A cure for her terminal illness.
And to complete the spell, she must merely sacrifice her newborn child.
Is it a “war on women” to say the hospital should be kicking the sorcerer out the door?
________________________________________
Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.
These Repuglicans do not care about babies…they care about money-war-control and they couldn’t care less if women are beaten, raped, forced into prostitution or economic slavery, if children are starving or stolen for sex-traffic or other abuses.
They may however dislike the loss of future soldiers or enslaved workers to keep the ranks of thier money grubbing machines swollen.
I think Viagra should be outlawed. I think there has been a steady decline in rational behavior and thought processes and an increase in violence since this drug has been available.