Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
I have written a number of posts for the Turley blog about The GOP’s war on women and proposed extreme anti-woman legislation which has been sponsored by members of the Republican party (here, here, here, here, here, and here). In a piece for Mother Jones, Stephanie Mencimer said that Paul Ryan has a “long history as a culture warrior”—and that people are taking “a fresh look” at it since Mitt Romney named Ryan as his running mate. I thought I’d do some investigating of my own to find out more about the Wisconsin “culture warrior’s” position on women’s issues.
According to Laura Bassett, Rep. Ryan “voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women, and voted multiple times to prevent women in the military from using their own money to pay for abortions at military hospitals.”
Sylvia Casablanca, a medical doctor and holistic psychotherapist, wonders if Ryan will now “head the conservative war on women.” Casablanca wrote in a VOXXI article that Ryan “sounds, thinks, acts, so much like Rick Santorum!” She added that both men have spent much of their public lives “battling the things that matter most to women.” She continued, “He [Ryan] has been opposing contraception, eulogizing women who quit successful careers to be stay-at-home moms (like their own wives have done), and vowing to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal the Affordable Care Act. And, Ryan voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.”
Casablanca feels that Ryan’s stance on the issues mentioned above are “zilch” compared to his “support of a federal ban on abortion in all circumstances, including incest and rape.”
In her Mother Jones article, Mencimer also wrote the following:
What isn’t so well known about Ryan’s record, though, is that one piece of legislation he supported is so extreme that it would have turned Romney’s children into criminals.
The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which Ryan co-sponsored, would have enshrined the notion that life begins at fertilization in federal law, thus criminalizing in vitro fertilization—the process of creating an embryo outside of a woman’s womb. In IVF, doctors typically create multiple embryos and then only implant the healthiest ones in the woman. Some of them stick and become babies, and some don’t. The embryos that don’t make it to the womb are either frozen for later use or destroyed. The Sanctity of Human Life Act, if passed, would make all those embryos “people” in the legal sense, so if they aren’t used or don’t become babies after being implanted, they would essentially become murder victims under the law.
H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life/Personhood Bill
Sponsor’s Summary: To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
Excerpt from the text of H. R. 212:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.
(2) CLONING- The term ‘cloning’ means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.
(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.
Link to MSNBC Hardball Video: Revisiting Ryan’s extreme pro-life positions: Chris Matthews talks with Kate Michaelman, former head of NARAL, and Politico’s Maggie Haberman about Paul Ryan’s extreme pro-life stance, and his support for a federal ‘personhood’ law.
In addition, Rep. Ryan is a cosponsor of some other “extreme” anti-woman legislation that has been introduced in Congress. To wit:
H.R. 3805: Ultrasound Informed Consent Act
Sponsor’s Summary: To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.
H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Open Congress Summary: This bill would make permanent and expand the Hyde amendment restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortions. It seeks to prohibit even indirect funding streams that may potentially come in contact with abortion services. For example, it would deny tax credits to companies that offer health plans that cover abortions and it would block anybody with insurance that covers abortions from receiving federal subsidies or medical cost tax deductions, even if the abortion portion is paid separately with personal funds. Women who use tax-free Medical Savings Accounts would have to pay taxes on the costs of abortions.
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act aka “Let Women Die” Bill
Open Congress Summary: Amends the new health care law so that no federal money could be applied to health insurance plans that cover elective abortions, even if the abortion coverage is paid for entirely with private funds. It also states that a federal agency can not force a health care provider that accepts Medicare or Medicaid to provide abortion services, even in cases when the mother’s life is endangered.
From Human Rights Watch:
US: House Vote Puts Women at Risk
Bill Would Permit Hospitals to Let Women in Need of Care Die
(Washington, DC) – The United States House of Representatives approved a bill on October 13, 2011, that would put women’s lives at risk, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill, if it becomes law, would reverse longstanding federal policy requiring hospitals to provide life-saving care regardless of expense, Human Rights Watch said.
The Protect Life Act, HR 358, would amend the healthcare reform law to grant hospitals far-reaching powers to deny patients abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need.
“The misnamed Protect Life Act is about allowing women to die if they need an emergency abortion,” said Meghan Rhoad, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “It is a vicious attack on women’s rights and on the most basic right to life.”
The Paul Ryan Vision: Ban Abortion, Defund Contraception, Outlaw In Vitro Fertilization
What do you think about Paul Ryan’s position on women’s issues?
SOURCES
Paul Ryan: the ‘Personhood’ Crocodile? (Huffington Post)
Paul Ryan Sponsored Fetal Personhood Bill, Opposes Family Planning Funds (Huffington Post)
Paul Ryan, new head of the Republican war on women? (VOXXI)
Bill Press: The Paul Ryan-Mitt Romney ticket: trouble for GOP (Newsday)
Sandra Fluke: 8 Points on Ryan’s Voting Record on Women’s Issues (Politic365)
Rep. Paul Ryan Supported the “Let Women Die” Bill (Blog for Choice)
How Did Your Representative Vote on the “Let Women Die” Bill? (Blog for Choice)
See How Your Lawmaker Voted on the “Let Women Die” Bill, H.R.358 (Prochoice America)
Sandra Fluke: Paul Ryan on women’s issues — so bad it’s unbelievable … but true (Lean Forward/MSNBC)
Five Reasons Why Paul Ryan Is Bad For Women’s Health (Think Progress)
The Paul Ryan Vision of America: Ban Abortion, Defund Contraception, Outlaw In Vitro Fertilization (Democracy Now)
List of Bills Sponsored and Cosponsored by Paul Ryan (Open Congress)
Elaine,
I was trying for a Fair, Balanced and Reasoned argument that supposed they aren’t an entirely heartless bunch motherphuckers that would let a mother die.
Elaine,
that was a great article from Maureen Dowd.
nick really does not have a problem with that, curious. He thinks any pregnancy should be carried to term in order to supply pristine babies, preferably white, to infertile couples.
What these couples should be doing is helping the babies who are already here, like nick did, or they should look into their diet- GMOs are causing infertility in animals in all independent tests. this infertility becomes sterility in the third generation.
So lets thank Monsanto for the problems these infertile couples are having in this modern age, shall we?
Well we have one thing to be thankful for. Mo Dowd has written a worthwhile column for a change.
They don’t have to be forced to carry it to term. There are always back alleys, unscrupulous doctors, nurses, and fraudsters and then of course the old reliable wire hanger. and hey without the ACA many will bleed out or die from infection saving the states money. Win-win all around.
Curious,
In your scenario, there would actually be no exception for the life of the mother. They’d be able to pass the “Let Women Die” legislation.
ID
Imagine this scenario…
It is now 2014, Republicans control all branches of government, and have outlawed all abortion except in the case of endangering the life of the mother. Picture a 15 year old pregnant from rape who must carry this pregnancy to term. But you’re ok with this because an infertile couple will adopt the baby? This is not making lemonade out of lemons. This is forcing a child to carry a reminder of the worst event of her life for nine months, to interupt her schooling, to endure the gossip at school (if she is allowed to continue school), and heavy-duty gynecological care (at 70 I still don’t like those exams). As a side issue, this Republican administration has also repealed ACA, and she has no health insurance.
I’m sorry the infertile couple can’t have children and I’m sorry they can’t afford IVF (which is now, in 2014, is also illegal thanks to Republicans). And maybe there will be children born from rape whose mothers did not want an abortion and puts the child up for adoption. But it seems almost the height of evil to me to force a child, no, any woman, to carry to term a pregnancy resulting from rape – almost especially since there is a couple who seeks a benefit. Think of the stolen children of South America.
I hope you (and Nick) will read “The Handmaid’s Tale”. .
Ryan Refuses To Say Abortions Should Be Available To Women Who Are Raped
By Ian Millhiser
8/22/12
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/22/724641/ryan-refuses-to-say-abortions-should-be-available-to-women-who-are-raped/
Excerpt:
This morning, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) revealed that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan urged him to drop out of his U.S. Senate race after Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments made him a liability to Republicans nationally. Yet Ryan’s attempt to stick a knife into the increasingly toxic senate candidate cannot be squared with Ryan’s long record of working with Akin to curtail reproductive freedom and redefine rape. Ryan and Akin cosponsored a “personhood” bill that would not only prohibit rape survivors from seeking an abortion, but would likely treat terminating a pregnancy that results from rape as a homicide crime. Similarly, Ryan and Akin partnered on a bill seeking to prevent Medicaid recipients who are raped from obtaining an abortion unless they are victims of “forcible rape.”
Nor is this a new position for Paul Ryan. The man Mitt Romney wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency claimed that abortion should be illegal except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life” as far back as his first House campaign in 1998. Throughout his career Ryan’s view has been consistent and unambiguous — rape survivors are out of luck.
In an interview with a local Pittsburgh television station yesterday, Ryan was given the opportunity to revise his position now that he is half of the Republican Party’s national ticket. He refused:
QUESTION: Should abortions to be available to women who are raped?
RYAN: Well, look, I’m proud of my pro-life record. And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.
Once again, Ryan’s “pro-life record in Congress” includes seeking to ban abortions in the case of rape.
Just Think No
By MAUREEN DOWD
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html?ref=todayspaper
Excerpt:
There’s something trying about an unforgiving man suddenly in need of forgiveness.
Yet Todd Akin is right. He shouldn’t have to get out of the United States Senate race in Missouri simply for saying what he believes. He reflects a severe stance on abortion that many in his party embrace, including the new vice presidential candidate.
“I talk about one word, one sentence, one day out of place, and, all of a sudden, the entire establishment turns on you,” Representative Akin complained to the conservative radio talk-show host Dana Loesch on Tuesday as he spurned pleas from Mitt Romney and other G.O.P. big shots to abort his bid. He continued: “They just ran for cover at the first sign of any gunfire, and I think we need to rush to the gunfire.”
He’s right again. Other Republicans are trying to cover up their true identity to get elected. Even as party leaders attempted to lock the crazy uncle in the attic in Missouri, they were doing their own crazy thing down in Tampa, Fla., by reiterating language in their platform calling for a no-exceptions Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.
Paul Ryan, who teamed up with Akin in the House to sponsor harsh anti-abortion bills, may look young and hip and new generation, with his iPod full of heavy metal jams and his cute kids. But he’s just a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs.
Elaine:
Oh.
Bron,
I thought Nick was speaking to me when he wrote: “I shoved it up your ass and you know it. ” Sometimes, Nick doesn’t address his comments to a specific person so its hard to know who he “thought” he bested in this argument. Nick is a legend in his own mind.
nick spinelli:
are you going to apologize to Gyges?
He actually has a point, I think I will refrain from using that turn of phrase the next time I best someone in a competition and just say something like:
“That move should have made your d&&k s*ft if you had any balls” .
Meaning of course if you are a man you would be humiliated.
Although I am not sure why Gyges is worried about that turn of phrase [the one on shoving it ] since it is used almost exclusively when talking with men about competition. And in indicating an inferior position competitively. It really doesnt have anything to do with females. Had Gyges not brought it up, I would not have equated the 2 and just assumed you meant besting a person in some form of competition.
But since he has brought it up and it does make sesne, I for one will refrain in using that turn of phrase. I also ask all men to abstain from using that phrase and to find something more appropriate, maybe something like:
“what a little putz, I guess Bozo taught you how to . . .” By using Bozo we have a gender neutral insult which is non-sexual in nature.
“I shoved it up your ass and you know it.”
So, are you just going to pretend that you didn’t say this… or do you honestly not see anything wrong with equating anal rape with victory?
Fear of a Right Planet
Romney-Ryan extremism could revive liberal support for Obama
by Ted Rall
Boise Weekly
8/22/12
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/fear-of-a-right-planet/Content?oid=2709946
Excerpt:
Between Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, his team of Dubya-rehash economic advisers (because that worked out so well) and Tea Party favorite Chris Christie as keynote speaker at this year’s Republican National Convention, the Republican Party is in danger of doing something that seemed impossible just a few months ago: strengthening support among the liberal base of the Democratic Party for President Barack Obama.
Granted, disappointed lefties will not soon forget Obama’s betrayals: Guantanamo, the drone wars against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere and the fact that this tone-deaf president has yet to propose a jobs program.
But many progressives, until recently threatening to sit on their hands or cast votes for a third party, are reconsidering, weighing disgust against gathering terror as they read the signals from the gathering storm in Tampa, Fla. Where Obama fails to inspire enthusiasm, the Romney team seems determined to generate as much fear as possible that he plans to shove the needle even further to the radical right than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
Romney, who abandoned his history as a centrist Massachusetts Republican and is running as a right-winger, chose to balance his newfound extremism with Ryan, an even-more-right-winger. Ryan is a vicious, overrated ideologue whose greatest achievement–his theoretical budget proposal–paints a picture of America as a dystopian hell where an infinitely funded Pentagon wages perpetual war and the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent party on tax cuts while the elderly and poor starve or succumb to treatable diseases, whichever kills them first. Lest you wonder whether the Ryan selection is an anomaly, wonder not–from Christie to the stump speeches to the men first in line to join a Romney cabinet, everything about Team Romney screams Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand minus the cool atheism and elitism.
idealist,
“What do I find, A mounting argument between Nick, Elaine and Shano, and maybe others too.
“As near as I can tell, they have at worse spoken sloppily, and/or misread what is written, looking for insults, and increasingly being uncivil to each other with grove accusations at the last leading to “go to hells” from all. Was this “CÍVIL TURLEY’S” blawg I was at?”
*****
Maybe you were groggy when you awoke this morning and read through our discussion on this thread.
What have I misread in the course of this discussion? Where–in any of my comments–did I tell anyone to “go to hell?” I’d say that you’re the person who has misread what is written or spoken sloppily. I am not a hasty reader. I’m also very careful about what I write in my comments. I don’t use vulgar language.
As I told you once before–I’m not in the habit of coddling people with whom I disagree. I speak my mind and and am not afraid to express my opinions. Sometimes, people like you and Nick appear to take offense when I do that. Nick directed a vulgar comment at me. I did no such thing to him.
GemeH.
If that was pointed at me, ie the at vs with comment, please use my name nest time so I will spend the time understanding it. Now I don’t get what you are correcting.
Paul Ryan Refuses to Explain ‘Forcible’ Rape
http://www.kmbz.com/Paul-Ryan-Refuses-to-Explain-Forcible-Rape/14049625
The Ties That Bind Paul Ryan and Todd Akin
Rape-denier Todd Akin is right in line with the GOP’s staunchly anti-abortion platform. And so is Ryan.
BY Marilyn Katz
August 21, 2012
http://inthesetimes.com/article/13718/the_ties_that_bind_paul_ryan_and_todd_akin/
Excerpt:
Republicans, heeding their media strategists, are trying to distance themselves from Todd Akin’s absurd comment that women cannot get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” But we shouldn’t let them get away with it. Rather than making him an outlier, Akin’s comments are consistent with the words and actions of the Republican Party—including its latest darling, presumptive vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan.
Ryan is being touted as an economic expert, but his legislative focus on economics is relatively new, whereas his anti-choice record is pages long and more than decade old. Of the 81 bills Ryan has sponsored or cosponsored in this congressional session, only three have dealt with the economy. The greatest number of bills he has backed on a single topic—10—have to do not with controlling the economy but controlling women’s bodies and what we can and cannot do with them.
Paul Ryan Cosponsored All the Most Extreme Anti-Abortion Bills
By Kate Sheppard
Wed Aug. 22, 2012
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/paul-ryan-cosponsored-all-most-extreme-anti-abortion-bills
Excerpt;
Over his career in the House, GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan has endorsed a number of measures that would limit or completely bar abortion in the United States. Although Ryan’s anti-abortion credentials have gotten plenty of coverage since he was announced as Romney’s veep choice, the full extent of the measures he’s endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortion even if their life is in immediate danger.
The House passed the “Protect Life Act” in October 2011, with Ryan as one of its 145 cosponsors. The measure would allow hospitals to refuse to “participate in” or “provide referrals” for abortions. Current law states that any hospital that receives government funds is required to provide emergency care for anyone. If a hospital is affiliated with a religious institution that refuses to provide abortion care under any circumstance, they’re legally required to transfer the patient to a hospital that will. But the measure Ryan cosponsored would remove that obligation, leading opponents to criticize the bill for letting women “die on the floor.”
with \ˈwith, ˈwith, wəth, wəth\ prep.,
3 (b) – used as a function word to express agreement or sympathy
at \ət, ˈat\, prep.,
1 – used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near
It is an important distinction.