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)
PoS, New to me. Yes, the whole question is a PoS.
What the hell happened? The lights went out and the cockroahes came back….
Did you ever see one two inches long, sitting on the sofa, staring and not retreating, and flying away when you near him.
They were mean mothers. True story.
Morning after post due to differenc time zones.
I earlier wrote and now repeat that some species of birds can eject the sperm from the cloaca at will.
The girls in the same evolutionary biology class as I
greeted the news with approving mutual glances.
We have got a ways to go to the developing of that technique.
This has been going on for quite a while, deciding which rapes would be ‘legitimate’ enough to allow an abortion: From digby
One of the most linked posts I ever wrote was called “The Sodomized Virgin Exception”, about the comments by a South Dakota lawmaker as to what might constitute a legitimate reason for an abortion. Here’s the gist:
FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls “convenience.” He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
Digby commented at the time:
Do you suppose all these elements have to be present for it to be sufficiently psychologically damaging for her to be forced to bear her rapists child, or just some of them? I wonder if it would be ok if the woman wasn’t religious but she was a virgin who had been brutally, savagely raped and “sodomized as bad as you can make it?” Or if she were a virgin and religious but the brutal savage sodomy wasn’t “as bad” as it could have been?
Certainly, we know that if she wasn’t a virgin, she was asking for it, so she should be punished with forced childbirth. No lazy “convenient” abortion for her, the little whore. It goes without saying that the victim who was saving it for her marriage is a good girl who didn’t ask to be brutally raped and sodomized like the sluts who didn’t hold out.
But even that wouldn’t be quite enough by itself. The woman must be sufficiently destroyed psychologically by the savage brutality that the forced childbirth would drive her to suicide (the presumed scenario in which this pregnancy could conceivably “threaten her life.”)
This was in 2006, and there was a fair amount of blowback that I was (as usual) being hyperbolic and rude, that this was a fringe sweller and I was unfairly tarring the good hearted pro-lifers as extremists.”
Nope, the tarring is still deserved.
This reliance on scripture to decide how to run a government or to make government policy is wrong and dangerous. Elaine, The Dark ages may be too enlightened for this “legitimate rape” nonsense!
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that this is the 21st century. I think there are people among us who much prefer the Dark Ages.
shano,
Thanks! I learned something new today from that post. Uteri is a proper pluralization of uterus. I was always taught the other proper plural, uteruses. Look out, Scrabble.
Jim, a woman who has an abortion as the result of rape is not killing a child. so, no child is being punished.
There is no child in this scenario, only some cells that are parasitic on the mother.
Jim I already cited the scripture for you. it is in Exodus. You are too lazy to be a Bible scholar, you can google as well as I can- two men fighting cause a woman to abort and have to pay a fine. Stating also that if the WOMAN had died they would be charged with murder. Causing the abortion was only punished by a fine.
It means get your busy body nose out of womens Uteri because it is none of your freakin’ business if there is anything in there at any time whatsoever. None of your business at all. Women have a right to privacy.
Curious,
I don’t set policy here. The only rule maker here is our host (and there are very few rules). So long as JT has no problem with alternative spellings, I say phucking go for it. 😀 In truth, I do not know why the policy on those four words was instituted because Jonathan has never told me or the other GB’s (to my knowledge) why he did so, but I suspect it has to do with a rash of troll attacks not too long ago and contemporaneous with the change made to the filter that were particularly abusive and generous in application with the terms. Distraction by what appeared to be almost randomly spewing profanity as a tactic if you will. To save manual edits in that circumstance, it is a rational choice that doesn’t (as you tangentially note) effectively bar people from speaking their mind in alternative manners. But as I say, that is supposition on my part.
Jim,
Should a woman be punished because she was raped?
Jim,
Your religious beliefs are yours. Trying to push your beliefs on all women is disgusting.
shano
Quote a scripture that backs up your assertion.
dr.s of what, theology?
shano
Should the child pay for the act of rape?
Elaine,
I apologize for not being up with the latest in wingnuttery!
shano,
Here I am a woman in my sixties–and I didn’t even know what a “legitimate” rape was. Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand.
Jim, God in the Bible says I can just pay a fine if I want an abortion. Thats cool.
God says you are wrong, but I bet you just didn’t know about what he said the policy was.
And Elaine, in this ‘legitimate’ rape, the woman can ‘shut down’ her Uterus so she can’t get pregnant.
So no abortion will be necessary. That means all abortions are for ‘illegitimate’ rapes, she participated in her rape, so no abortion will be provided.
It is exactly the same as if a stranger robs you or your neighbor, whom you know well, robs you. the robbery is a lesser crime if your neighbor robs you instead of a stranger.
Do you understand now?
rafflaw,
Didn’t you know that there were diffferent degrees of rape? For shame!
Jim,
There is no such thing as a legitimate rape. It is a disgusting concept!