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)
It’s just amazes me that bettykath has not been here since saturday. Did they both take a trip?
nick,
You’re so predictable! Always poking people with a stick. How about you grow up and join in the discussion? Got something to say on the subject of Paul Ryan and his cosponsoring of anti-woman legislation?
Elaine, You strike me as one of those nanny teachers who would say, w/ your head tilted in the progressive “I care” look, “Mr and Mrs. Johnson, have you considered Ritalin for Josh.” Well, as I see your obsessive comments, I would say, maybe your mommy and daddy should have considered Welbutrin for their OCD child.
Todd Akin and Paul Ryan Are More Alike Than You Think
By Margaret Carlson Aug 20, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-are-more-alike-than-you-think.html
Excerpt:
Todd Akin’s remarks about some rapes being “legitimate,” and the ability of a woman to miraculously self-abort in those instances, have many of his fellow Republicans desperate to distinguish him from others in their party. This isn’t easy.
Akin, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who is seeking to unseat Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, is not an outlier. No less than Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate for vice president, shares his views. Ryan, Akin’s colleague in the House, has sponsored legislation with him that also sought to distinguish between types of rape: Instead of “legitimate,” it used the word “forcible.”
What Akin’s remarks have unleashed is a discussion in the presidential race over social issues that will be hard for Republicans to control. They were reasonably sure they could paper over the differences between Ryan and his running mate, Mitt Romney, on Medicare. On social issues, the problem is the opposite: The difference between Ryan’s views and Akin’s could fit on a Post-it note.
On Sunday, the Republicans’ chances for taking control of the Senate took a big hit. When asked on a St. Louis TV program if he would make an exception to his anti-abortion stand for rape, Akin said he would not because in those instances a woman’s body will somehow know to end the pregnancy itself.
Here’s where my derision for partisan politics reaches a head. With all the hate and fear spewed by both sides there is nothing discussed that is interesting. Having grown up in a blue collar, ethnic household, in the WASP State of Ct., I saw people in power being all WASP men. We now have a Supreme Court of Jews and Catholics. We have 4 men[a woman or 2 would be nice!] running for POTUS. One is a Mormon, two are Catholic, and one is Protestant. The Protestant is black, and one of the Catholics is Irish and a Republican. This is quite historic and noteworthy. I thought I would just give my blue collar, ethnic take on this. You can all go back to spewing hatred, sorry to inject a little sanity. And feel free to tell me I’m “stupid” and “out of my league”. I know I’m not worthy of the smug and sanctimonious who hijack most threads.
How bad is the Ryan-Akin anti-abortion bill?
By Greg Sargent
8/20/12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-bad-is-the-ryan-akin-anti-abortion-bill/2012/08/20/c7e37e04-eafe-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html
Excerpt:
The national battle over Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape” has shed light on a “personhood” bill, co-sponsored by Akin and Paul Ryan, called the Sanctity of Life Act. Much of the chatter today has focused on whether Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape. The Romney campaign confirmed today that Ryan does personally oppose it, while clarifying that a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose it.
But what about the other legal implications of the bill Ryan and Akin co-sponsored? In an interview just now, Dem Rep. Louise Slaughter, one of the leading pro-choice voices in Congress, raised two startling possibilities.
“One of the questions around this legislation is, Could a rapist who impregnated a victim sue that victim if she decided not to carry that baby and to have an abortion?” Slaughter said. “Another question: Could in vitro fertilization be outlawed?”
It’s unclear how this legislation would work. The bill affirms that from the moment of fertilization onward, “every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” It then says that Congress and the states have the “authority” to protect all human beings — again, defined as human life from fertilization onward — residing in their juristictions.
Slaughter’s suggestion is that this affirms the authority of Congress or the states to pass laws outlawing IVF, since that procedure requires the destruction of embryos, or that it could give legal weight to a rapist’s insistence that his victim not abort her baby — though again, it’s unclear how this would work.
“What it says is that a single cell can achieve all the protections the Constitution of the United States bestows on persons,” Slaughter said of the bill. “Scientifically the law is crazy.”
Paul Ryan’s rape reversal
Romney says he would not oppose abortion in instances of rape; but Paul Ryan’s record looks a lot like Todd Akin’s
By Alex Seitz-Wald
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/paul_ryans_rape_reversal/
Akin Bad: Paul Ryan’s ‘Forcible Rape’ Bill Co-Sponsor Drags Him Into Daylight
by Tommy Christopher
August 20th, 2012
http://www.mediaite.com/online/akin-bad-paul-ryans-forcible-rape-bill-co-sponsor-drags-him-into-daylight/
Excerpt:
As reprehensible as they are, current US Congressman and possible US Senator Rep. Todd Akin‘s (R-MO) remarks on the medical effects of “legitimate rape” are a gift to voters, who will now be exposed to the truth about vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who co-sponsored a bill that insisted on an abortion exception only in cases of “forcible rape.”
The remarks also shine a light on the Romney/Ryan ticket’s competing views on rape and reproductive freedom, issues that might otherwise have been overlooked.
In case you missed it, Akin told an interviewer that pregnancy resulting from rape is “really rare” because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
The medical basis for Akin’s statement appears to be a recently-published study from The New England Journal of Todd Akin’s Ass, but the subtext is that not all rapes are created equal, an idea that was nearly codified into law by Akin and Rep. Paul Ryan, along with 216 other Republicans (and 10 Democrats!).
H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, originally contained language restricting the exception for federally-funded abortions to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest,” and offered no further clarification of the term. On its face, the law would have eliminated statutory rape (on the premise that, what? That ten year-old clearly was into it?), but also left open the possibility that rapes involving drugging, or even rapes that did not result in serious enough injuries to the victim, would fail to fit the definition. He held a gun to your head? Where’s the gun? Did you check to see if it was loaded?
David Axelrod: Todd Akin’s Comments Are ‘Inconvenient’ For Romney-Ryan, ‘Not Inconsistent’
By Sam Stein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/david-axelrod-todd-akin_n_1811693.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — The Obama campaign is, not surprisingly, unwilling to accept Mitt Romney’s condemnation of Rep. Todd Akin’s controversial remarks and move on.
Akin, a Missouri Republican who is running for Senate, said Sunday that women who are the victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant. In an interview with The Huffington Post on Monday, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said the comments reflected the larger philosophy of the GOP presidential ticket.
He predicted that the public would find the remarks even more distasteful once it became widely known that Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), teamed up with Akin on strict anti-abortion measures.
“When you look at who Akin’s partner was on all the anti-choice legislation, it was Paul Ryan,” said Axelrod. “When you look at the legislation that would limit a women’s right to choose, even for victims of rape and incest, that is the Akin-Ryan position. And frankly, by endorsing personhood amendments … Romney has gone there too. This is the prevailing position of the Republican Party.”
“I think they find Todd Akin’s comment terribly inconvenient,” Axelrod said. “It is very inopportune. But they are certainly not inconsistent, when Ryan joined with him and tried to limit the definition of rape to forcible rape. What does that mean? They are trying to run away from what has been their own position and yet, while Akin’s proposition was particularly egregious and outrageous, on the underlining principle of whether you are going to limit a woman’s right to choose, and how rape victims are dealt with and how they would approach this issue, they are very much in line with him.”
I read The Republican ticket are not only going to chain blacks, but women and illegals. I’m heavily invested in David Round in case the unspeakable occurs and those stupid, evil, lazy Republicans actually do win. I was w/ Solyndra as a hedge, but we know how that went. Any suggestions from you Dems where to put my $’s if the good guys win?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169451/danger-laughing-todd-akin#
Elaine,
I do remember the protest sign!
I think Paul Ryan’s anti-choice views are way beyond extreme. They are at the Akin level on absurdity.
Gurl,
I’ve been in Stockholm for 44 years. Appreciated the ad, but fear it will be over their heads.
Paul Ryan’s Extreme Anti-Choice Views
By Amanda Marcotte
Aug. 13, 2012
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/13/paul_ryan_appears_to_believe_fertilized_eggs_deserve_more_rights_than_women_.html
Excerpt:
As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan’s extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.
Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, “To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration.” Just in case he’s left any doubt in the reader’s mind that he simply doesn’t acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:
“At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.”
This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories “women” and “human beings” are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday.
gurl & rafflaw,
Do you remember this?
Sen. McIntyre holds a sign at protest: ‘If I wanted the govt in my womb I’d f*ck a Senator’ (Freak Out Nation)
http://freakoutnation.com/2012/03/02/sen-mcintyre-holds-a-sign-at-protest-if-i-wanted-the-govt-in-my-womb-id-fuck-a-senator/
gurl,
hilarious video!
http://youtu.be/-b_lvSQK4MI
Jim….
When a woman is raped by a person she “THOUGHT” she knew….
or has been acquainted with….
she is in fear of her life….
This person suddenly has turned into a monster….
and she has just as much chance of being killed by this man,
if not MORE so because she can name and identify him….
Suggesting that there are 2 kinds of rape and what is appropriate emotionally is just DISGUSTING and seriously ill-informed….
and PLEASE that crap about abortion punishing a “CHILD”…..
Get a grip…. it is a clump of cells…..
Using scripture to dictate MY LIFE is just OUT there….
I am an Atheist… So, your bible means NOTHING TO ME…..
I expect that in a SECULAR Society that my beliefs be respected as well…
and using the bible to dictate what my DOCTOR and I decide to do with my body is just plain WRONG…. and wreaks of a Christian Taliban equivalent…..
and fact is…. making a woman carry a child from rape is not only wrong…. it is CRUEL!!!!!
until men can get pregnant and carry a child to term,
I REALLY think they should stay out of my UTERUS!!!!!
Todd Akin, Paul Ryan and the very real war on women
BY ZERLINA MAXWELL
8/20/12
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/todd-akin-paul-ryan-and-the-very-real-war-on-women
Excerpt:
Two words that should never be used together in the same sentence: legitimate and rape. But that’s the way Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) chose to speak about the sensitive topic that has impacted millions of women in the United States in an interview with a local television station Sunday.
In defending his extreme anti-choice position – that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant should not be permitted to have an abortion, Akin said, “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin, who clearly didn’t pay attention in biology class, is challenging Democratic incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill. After the negative and swift public reaction to his remarks, Akin said in a statement that he “misspoke,” but that claim doesn’t fly when you do a quick review of his legislative history, which is directly connected vice presidential pick Rep. Paul Ryan on this exact issue.
Akin and Ryan were the original co-sponsors of the controversial bill H.R. 3, “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which initially included language which changed the definition of “rape” to “forcible rape,” until public pressure forced the bill’s supporters to remove that unacceptable and narrow definition. As I wrote previously, Paul Ryan is not just anti-choice, his anti-choice views are extreme and just plain bad for all women.
Linking Ryan to Akin and the idea that there is such a thing as “legitimate rape” based on pseudo-science and folklore is something that needs to be done before the upcoming election. While Team Romney attempted to create distance with Akin, saying that both Romney and Ryan “disagree” with his statements, there was nothing in their statement that said they condemn his remarks as hurtful to victims. There was also nothing in Team Romney’s statement that pointed out that what Akin said about pregnancies resulting from rape being rare is just flat-out wrong.