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)
Gyges, Lighten up, “shove up the ass” is part of the vernacular. You’re playing victim. Call one of those attorneys who advertise on daytime tv. I can assure you they’ll tell you to go fly a kite..a phrase you should be able to abide.
” I have “walked the walk” regarding rape victims as discussed previously. I’ve done more to help rape victims than 99.9% of the population I was spoken down to by Elaine on this subject and now by whomever the heck you are. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Elaine, what have you done to help rape victims? The inmates in Leavenworth called anal rape, “Gettin’ your sh$t packed,.” You seem a bit obsessed by this ass area. Did you just have a prostate exam lately. I’m assuming you’re a dude? Anal retentive maybe, Gyges?”
Hey, assuming you’ve done all that stuff. Good on you. Seriously, it’s great that you did all that stuff. You have every reason to be proud of yourself, you’ve done something concrete that made the world a better place. Thank you.
The bit about “shoved it up your ass” is still a really sick thing to say. What you have done in the past has absolutely no bearing on that fact. If I’m obsessed with the ass, has no bearing. I’d hope you’re willing to either defend your statement on its merits or spend a little bit of time to consider the impact your words can have.
Let me ask you again: Do you see nothing wrong with saying that you anally raped someone as a way of signifying victory?
Complaining about me or Elaine won’t answer that question and neither would talking about the good things you’ve done. The only thing that WILL answer that question is talking in terms of what you’ve said and the effect those words have on you, and the people that could read them.
idealist, first he tell us to shove it up our a55es and then he tells us we cannot possibly believe that abortion should be rare.
This is exactly how the radical right wing put it- we do not really believe that abortions should be rare because of all sorts of batsh+t insane reasons. hint hint nudge nudge
“The fact that what I’m saying is controversial here lends my deductive mind to think the “rare” abortion part of your creed is maybe just perfunctory?”
nick
How insulting! why should we respect him even if he did help some people, he assumes too much, always. so, everyone should just scrub and bow to nick…. haha
No. he is really insulting even if he agrees with your stance. Enough.
Giving Birth to a “Rapist’s Child”: A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded toWomen Who Become Mothers Through Rape
SHAUNA R. PREWITT*
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF
Excerpts:
Approximately 25,000 women become pregnant through rape each year. In
response, many states have passed special laws, devised streamlined procedures, or both, to aid pregnant women who seek abortions or wish to place their rape-conceived children for adoption. However, few states have passed laws to aid the large numbers of raped women who choose to raise their rape-conceived children. Without such laws, in most states, a man who
fathers through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that
child as does any other father of a child. Moreover, as a result of this legal
void, raped women and their children are left to face substantial and potentially terrible consequences. This Note argues that the absence of these laws stems from the societal images and other rhetoric concerning the pregnant raped woman that depict raped women as hating their unborn children and viewing their rape pregnancies as continuing their rape experience. These societal constructions have created a biased “prototype” of the pregnant raped woman and of the prototypical rape pregnancy experience by which all pregnant raped women are judged. Women who raise their rape-conceived children depart from the prototype and are, as a result, viewed with suspicion. Legal protections, such as alternate custody rights, are then denied to them because, being viewed as “imposter” rape victims, it is thought that there is nothing special about these women or their conceptions requiring any change in the manner in which custody and visitation determinations are made.
*****
I. WOMEN WHO CHOOSE TO RAISE THEIR RAPE-CONCEIVED CHILDREN: A LIFETIME TETHERED TO THEIR RAPISTS
As already noted, a significant percentage of raped women choose to raise the children they conceived through rape.15 Under most states’ laws, a man who fathers a child through rape has the same legal rights to custody and visitation in regard to that child as does any other father of a child due to the absence of any laws restricting or terminating such rights; as a result, many raped women face significant consequences following their decisions to raise the children they conceived through rape. They may be forced to share custody privileges of their children with their rapists, to ensure their rapists’ access to their children, to foster their rapists’ relationships with their children, and, in some cases, to make
joint decisions about their children’s welfare.
Curious, I also stated directly, “They should be legal” @ 10:33am yesterday. That was not the issue here. However, some folks do have issues. No sorry needed Curious bugt thanks, it’s gotten pretty whacky here. Hell..I thought this was over! There are laws about beating dead horses.
idealist,
P.S. Here is the question I left at the end of my post about Paul Ryan:
“What do you think about Paul Ryan’s position on women’s issues?”
idealist,
You wrote the following:
I come here after sleeping through most of your evening hours to catch up. I start at my last post where I stopped.
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?
Now I would NEVER do such things, so I venture to suggest to them to find the comment that angered you, read the five previous comment to get context and correct content. Then read forward, looking for your and the others mistakes. Particularly your own. I guarantee they are there.
I won’t stand in judgement on your respective parts. But I would like to thank Nick for opening a new source of sorrow for me to investigate, the infertile couple. And the difficulties of finding adopters for children here in America. Or even to find folks to help those organizations who would help the process for the mothers and the babies.
It maybe was not the right point to bring it up. It seems so. Your passionate statements can be misinterpreted. Most of what we say can, for that matter. Jeez, yes.
Both Elaine and Shano are VERY compassionate and passionate persons, but they are slso human. And hasty readers, which we all are. Only polymaths are perfect as OS points out.
Not a snart, just a joke.
I noted how you oldtimers congregated around Elaine (mostly) dealing out strokes to calm down and bring an end to the bad atmosphere. I approve, not that you care. But maybe Nick was worth some consideration there too.
My reading says so. But extablished buddies come first, I understand how it works.
Nick, stop looking at all the faults here. Won’t get you anything but your own misery. Note them and go on.
Adapt. And I am giving advice again. Hubris.
Was it GeneH who said that “taking your theory and looking for supporting evidence was not science” (as I remember it)? Damn good advice for us all who come with preconceptions. You’ll likely find the proof you expected to be here.
“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?”
*****
I responded to you with the following:
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.
*****
Then you wrote the following:
Shano,
With all respect to you.
Here is how you put it:
First, a quotation of Nick, which says he supports the woman’s choice, no matter what it is. (some for private reasons do not want abortions, I guess.)
And then you give a resumé as you remember it.
No quotations.
Now how can anybody make a decision on the basis of that???
This is exactly what ElaineM did. Make assertions and even slang crap at me for good measure.
I don’t even get cred for trying to negotiate peace between you all. Citing your bonafides does not get anywhere in fact. Argue the case before the bench. Citing past wins don’t win this one in my eyes.
You give what you think Nick means, not even what he in fact said.
But, no matter. If you don’t get it then I can not make you drink my koolaid. We got bigger battles to fight than the ones at JT’s.
Just saying, making peace is harder than you think.
And hard feelings and misunderstandings don’t help doing so.
Cooperation is better than competition. And now we are going to compete ourselves out of existence. You know that,
So why are we fighting each other here. Weird.
*****
What “crap” did I sling at you? What assertions did I make? What past wins did I cite? I think you need to read my responses to you and Nick in the context of this abortion discussion more carefully.
shano, There’s a 50/50 chance, unless you’re transgender but the odds of that are low. I’m quite open about my id. To each their own.
Shano,
Who the EFF cares what you are. I know what you are. I have supported you from before hemp was mentioned. So you are not getting needless guff from me.
So, tell me, please. Where does it hurt? And can it be eased by something other than humiliating Nick?
Don’t be stupid. You see the world going to hell as I do. Let’s try to hold it together for a while.
Casting sand like 3 year olds risks putting out an eye.
Perfunctory nick. Perfunctory. You already shot yourself. the gun is empty. What makes you think I am a woman?
ID
I re-read and found the following comments from Nick:
“Abortions should be rare, w/ the infertility problems in this country being helped. They should be legal.”
“I’m simply talking about taking a negative[unwanted pregnancy] and turning it into a positive[infertile couple having a child] if that’s what the pregnant woman would like.”
You’re right. He did not refuse choice. I am now sitting down for a lunch of my comments of a page of 8.5×10 inch paper.
Sorry, Nick.
I did not ask to be judge nor negotiator of peace here.
I only asked that you look through what was written from before you got angry and see if maybe there were some misunderstanding there. That is all I asked.
And to maybe be a little kinder to each other.
shano, I believe abortion should be legal. I’ve said that numerous times. How does that make me radical right? You continue to shoot yourself in the foot. Breathe, woman…BREATHE!
Shano,
With all respect to you.
Here is how you put it:
First, a quotation of Nick, which says he supports the woman’s choice, no matter what it is. (some for private reasons do not want abortions, I guess.)
And then you give a resumé as you remember it.
No quotations.
Now how can anybody make a decision on the basis of that???
This is exactly what ElaineM did. Make assertions and even slang crap at me for good measure.
I don’t even get cred for trying to negotiate peace between you all. Citing your bonafides does not get anywhere in fact. Argue the case before the bench. Citing past wins don’t win this one in my eyes.
You give what you think Nick means, not even what he in fact said.
But, no matter. If you don’t get it then I can not make you drink my koolaid. We got bigger battles to fight than the ones at JT’s.
Just saying, making peace is harder than you think.
And hard feelings and misunderstandings don’t help doing so.
Cooperation is better than competition. And now we are going to compete ourselves out of existence. You know that,
So why are we fighting each other here. Weird.
Gyges, I have “walked the walk” regarding rape victims as discussed previously. I’ve done more to help rape victims than 99.9% of the population I was spoken down to by Elaine on this subject and now by whomever the heck you are. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Elaine, what have you done to help rape victims? The inmates in Leavenworth called anal rape, “Gettin’ your sh$t packed,.” You seem a bit obsessed by this ass area. Did you just have a prostate exam lately. I’m assuming you’re a dude? Anal retentive maybe, Gyges?
The fact that what I’m saying is controversial here lends my deductive mind to think the “rare” abortion part of your creed is maybe just perfunctory?”
nick
yea, nick, we think all women should have monthly abortions. How stupid can you be?
You continue the radical right wing meme that women do not take this option seriously, that they should not be allowed choice because having an abortion is just ‘perfunctory’- that women will use abortions solely for ‘birth control’ . We have heard this all before, you are just better at clouding the language.
Maybe the GOP should rebrand itself and be honest about the party of “Dumb and Dumber”….. Just sayin…..
“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.”
Well, I’m worried about it because I happen to think women shouldn’t have to put up living in a country where they have a 1 in 6 chance of being raped in their lifetime. And I happen to think that women shouldn’t have to put up with being told that if they’re raped they’re a looser and week, and the shouldn’t have to live in the type of society that thinks that way.
The whole point is, last I knew shoving something up somebody’s unwilling rectum is in fact rape. I mean really, that statement is literally “I’m did something that’s rape to you, and you know it” to mean “I won.” And when you do that, you’re saying, “the way you show your strength is by forcing sex on someone.” You’re re-enforcing all sorts of messages that when a women’s raped, it’s only because she’s somehow less then a guy. You’re saying that as a guy the way to win is to have sex with a woman, even if they may not want it. And no, every time you say it, it might not lead directly to a woman getting raped, but every little bit of re-enforcement of that sort of thinking just makes it that much harder to break the cycle.
Language is a powerful thing, and if Nick really cares about helping rape victims as much as he claims, he’ll do his best to make sure that the message he sends is not one that helps keep the incidence of rape in the U.S. so very high.
Here is nick idealist,
” I’m simply talking about taking a negative[unwanted pregnancy] and turning it into a positive[infertile couple having a child] if that’s what the pregnant woman would like. A freakn’ option supported by women pro and anti abortion. I applaud your empathy for pregnant women. I share it. How about some of that empathy for infertile couples? The fact that what I’m saying is controversial here lends my deductive mind to think the “rare” abortion part of your creed is maybe just perfunctory?”
He accuses Elaine and I of not supporting adoption when we had not even said anyting about it! And then he resorts to name calling. and resorts to saying, well, women should all get together and find a compromise? Women already know what they want, it is the right to privacy.
Nick is not reading our posts, just assuming he knows what we think. Nothing he said was controversial, no one called him out on it except to say women should not be forced to provide babies for the infertile. That would be horrific! We all think that society should care for the babies that are here rather than force women to carry to term.
Maybe he should shove it up his own a55.
As I understand it Nick did not take sides on the abortion issue at all. He, as I saw it,from the beginning introduce and asked for compassion for another group who suffer the arrows of fate.
How that is saying that (as one above does now) Nick supports forcing women to birth unwelcome children so that infertile couples will have adoption objects is beyond my understanding.
As clarification, as I remember, he brought up as refucation the simple fact that there are NOW IN AMERICA more adoptable children than there are couples seeking them. He even gave examples of how he supports centers who support finding homes for these children.
How you can get excited by this escapes me. But I am only human and can be wrong. But I don’t go looking for an enemy when Nick comes over the horizon. And that does not mean he gets free wind from me. If you get that. Better if I say he gets no slack from me. Every thing he says is checked just like I do yours.
Why should I risk getting crap on my head for his sake. Not at all. I just saw some people I respected very much talking past each other and NOT listening, and getting lesa and less aware of what the other is really saying. And that is a shame.
Especially when it leads to making enemies where there should be none. There are simply too many fights here at JTs, and too little civility—as JT said.
Spoken by one who before attacked because of fear. But that is in the past now. No excuses now from me.
Did any take my advice to re-read as I suggested? Seems not to be so.