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)
nick,
It’s not the responsibility of women who are raped and impregnated by their rapists–who could be their fathers or brothers–to carry their pregnancies to term in order to provide children for infertile couples. What about the anguish of a woman who would be forced to carry a rapist’s child for nine months and then have to go through the excruciating pain of childbirth? One reason women are willing to endure that pain is because they want to have children with the men they love. I wish you had as much compassion for raped women as you do for the childless.
No, I am not heatless to say that a women who would rather have an abortion than carry to term is proper. It should always be the choice of the woman, her family if she has one and her doctor.
It is heartless to say that these woman should be forced to carry to term regardless, just because there may be a shortage of healthy babies for others to adopt. that should not even be a consideration.
People who want a baby can get one! That women have the option of abortion has nothing to do with this.
The statistics back me up, we have thousands of kids who need homes, why don’t they have a home? Why are people not adopting these kids? Because the pristine baby is what all these people want. More and more of them all the time to satiate the greed of others.
This is what the radical ‘right to life’ people want, force women to produce thousands of unwanted babies to satisfy the greed for pristine babies. If they had their way, pregnant women would be locked up until delivery to make sure the woman does not harm that precious fetus until the ‘right’ ie Christian family can get ahold of it.
There are thousands of babies languishing in Romanian orphanages, and other places, without proper care.. Millions of children without enough food to eat. More millions dying of starvation each year. We cannot even take care of the babies born every year as it is! These babies should be finding homes before we force women to have even more babies that they themselves do not want.
Child starvation should be wiped out before we force women to have babies they do not want.
The planet is already overpopulated with humans. Why assure that this continues to happen by banning abortion, birth control and other methods of family planning? That may sound harsh to you, but it is a matter of quality of life for all of us. Family planning is the most important part of human sustainability on a planet with finite resources.
Curious,
I believe it’s important to point out to people that the legislation that Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are cosponsoring wouldn’t allow women to have an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when their lives are in danger; would give fertilized eggs more rights than pregnant women; would make certain types of birth control illegal. My hope is to show people just how extreme and anti-woman their proposed legislation is.
I also think it of great import to show that Paul Ryan is on the same page as Todd Akin when it comes to women’s health and welfare. I certainly don’t want a man who would cosponsor this kind of anti-woman legislation to be elected vice president of my country.
shano, From the CDC. There are 6.7 million women of child bearing age[15-44] who have infertility issues in the US. That is 10.9% of the population of women of child bearing age.
Let me tell you what the stats don’t tell you. The anguish, pain and shame of the couples. The incessant questions, “When you going to have a child?” The feeling of inadequacy. The feeling of envy seeing women w/ no parenting skills or love having kids. I could go on, but I’ll leave it @ that.
shano, Your ideology is blocking your compassion. Firstly, most of the kids who are adopted in the US come from middle income young women, not “poor” women. We went through support groups, adoption groups, and they included the entire social strata. Do you think blue collar couples are immune to infertility?? You are either clueless or heartless as to the infertility epidemic in this country. Couples w/ lots of money can afford cutting edge fertility treatment. It’s mostly middle and lower income folks who adopt. And, we adopt from foster homes, special needs, and foreign countries. You seem to know a lot about the politics of abortion. Why not use your obvious intellect and passion to learn something about infertility and adoption. What I am saying might make more sense to you.
Elaine,
I worry that concentrating the battle on defending the right to abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother we are making a mistake. I fear we may win that argument but will wind up with ONLY those exceptions. Soon Americans will think pro-choice just means abortion is permissable in the case of rape, incest, health and will shrug away the whole of Roe. A terrible result.
shano,
And how about making the morning after pill available to women who have been raped and not making it an illegal drug?
If you want to prevent abortions, you make sure everyone has health care, a high school education and birth control. Not the exact opposite.
nick, I have never said I was against adoption.
I am only against the lack of choices! Why should a poor woman, or young women as in the past, be forced to carry to term a child she cannot afford to keep? A woman who would have rather had an abortion but now has to give up her baby because she could not afford to care for it.
This is never a decision that rich women have to make. Why should the poor have to suffer so the rich can have a baby to adopt? Why dont the rich adopt kids in the foster care system? We have thousands and thousands of kids who do not have homes, why do you think more babies will help this situation? The rich who want a child already have thousands of options.
If the woman has a baby with the intent of giving it up for adoption, that is one thing. the other is that she has no other choice but to do so. Some women will find this option more traumatic, I know I would.
If I went to the trouble to carry to term no way in he11 would I be able to give that baby to anyone.
Whether ones’ child is adopted, or
ones genetic product is irrelevant to me in my understanding of parenting.
OK, but it is not irrelevant in any understanding of pregnancy.
If there is to be true equality, then if a parent can die in childbirth, it should be the father 50% of the time. Same goes to damage to kidneys, blood clots, etc. OK? Then we can talk equality OK?
Two observations:
Abortions are not cool, not fun, and no woman enjoys or accepts them as the price of free sex. Nor would as many seek them if we had full sex education or access to “day after” pills. Or respect for a “no” if no condom is available. So it ain’t womens’ faults.
Most of these control freaks are in one of two mental states:
1) Afraid that they are losing their grip on their wives, daughters, granddaughers, and society which they thought they ruled.
2) Want to go back to the good ol’ bible days when Abraham could have his jollies with his slave girl and then send her into the desert with his child when his wife had done what his culture required—produce a son.
Just shows that idiots CAN rule a nation. And may just do so, if Romney wins.
Repubs! How about a law requiring DNA tests at birth of all. Then there is some chance that the baby gets someone who pays or forces society to pay if he can not.
Ryan et al does not have any morals. They just want to keep their freebies.
Can’t believe that Jesus meant to start all this (if he existed)
Mike, As I said to rafflaw, agreed! Would a libertarian want govt. involved in this women’s decision? Of course not. I want reasonable women from across the spectrum to come up w/ a framework. There’s way too much negative energy from both extreme ends of the spectrum.
I think you need to convince shano, however.
Agreed. Next point?
What Mike and shano said. This whole issue is about giving women control over there own bodies and the Ryan’s of the world don’t want that to happen as evidenced by their votes and proposed legislation and party planks. Women have the choice now to deliver the baby and offer it up for adoption, but it has to be their choice, not the Republican party or any party’s choice.
Mike, Thanks for your spitual counseling. Let’s make a deal. I won’t tell you what to pray for and you afford me the same respect. Lots of sanctimony here..too damn much. You folks need to breathe and step out of the echo chamber.
Folks seem to be missing my point because everyone is so locked in on the talking points. I’m a libertarian. Going back to prohibtion, we see how outlawing booze did..it made matters worse. Further, although the nanny govt. wants to ban smoking, fat, Big Gulps, etc.,sane people know that’s idiotic. Following that logic, banning abortion would have similar outcomes to prohibition, that being illegal, unsafe abortions. No where did I say, nor imply, that women be FORCED to give babies up for adoption. 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?
“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?”
Nick,
Please re-read my last two comments to understand that they were not about attacking you, or your positions personally. Parenthood has been one of the great, if not greatest, blessings of my life. Whether ones’ child is adopted, or
ones genetic product is irrelevant to me in my understanding of parenting. To raise a child, bestowing ones loving care upon it, is not a matter of genetics, but of unconditional love and I know that personally.
However, the statement of yours that I quoted,in the context of your comment did seem to be slanted toward the have the child and give it up for adoption line of reasoning. While I am not against that as a possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy, especially for a women of a given religious persuasion, I am against it when offered as a preferable viable option for an unwanted pregnancy as an argument against abortion. My belief is simply that it is the woman’s choice and that is the end of the matter. I do not believe that potential fathers, for instance have any right in the decision.
“lends my deductive mind to think the “rare” abortion part of your creed is maybe just perfunctory?”
Nick,
Please don’t confuse my political positions (creed?) with those mealy mouthed people who are pro-choice but try to sound equivocal. I am unequivocal in saying it is purely a woman’s right to choose and no body else’s business what or why she makes that choice.
Mike,
Did you see this story?
2012 Republican Platform To Advocate Abortion Ban Without Rape Exception
By Aviva Shen on Aug 21, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/21/718461/2012-republican-platform-to-advocate-abortion-ban-without-rape-exception/
Excerpt;
Republican politicians have been falling over themselves to condemn from Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, who said Sunday that women who have experienced “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” The Romney-Ryan campaign called Akin’s comments “insulting, inexcusable and frankly wrong,” in spite of Ryan’s close working relationship with Akin on a number of radical anti-abortion and contraception bills. A Romney spokesperson added that the “Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”
But embracing a rape exception for abortion rights would put the campaign at odds with the Republican Party’s longstanding platform, the newest iteration of which will be officially unveiled at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. In spite of the massive public outcry from the right over Akin’s comments, the official GOP platform committee drafted a provision Monday supporting a “human life amendment” that would outlaw abortion without specifying exemptions for rape or incest. The platform reads:
“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
Heading the committee is Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), best known for his “mandatory ultrasound” law requiring any woman getting an abortion to undergo an unnecessary ultrasound. McDonnell also revealed his regressive position on women’s rights in his college thesis, which slandered working women, contraception, and “fornicators.” It’s no surprise, then, that under his guidance, the Republican Party will reaffirm its support for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion and likely many forms of contraception.
Elaine,
I did see it. God Damn Them! From my perspective this election is now focused on the attempts to further reinforce the American Patriarchy on the part of misogynists who are mainly too shallow to understand their own male hatred of women, people of color and gay people. The question remains undecided as to whether American moves further towards bigotry after this coming election.
Also let me add this to the above since this is an issue that is important to me.
For those who would say that they can’t allow murder on a moral basis, I say they are hypocrites. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has spearheaded the anti-abortion movement because they can’t tolerate murder of a fetus. Yet for hundreds of years during the Inquisition that same church condoned burning supposed heretics at the stake for being non-believers. The same RCC sanctioned wars and crusades that killed hundreds of thousands in the name of political opportunity disguised as religious belief.
We have discovered today that the same RCC that is so upset about abortion has for years officially covered up pedophilia, which has cause untold misery to probably hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Now please understand this that I’m not making a strictly anti-Catholic rant, because in truth the RCC’s abortion position is better than that of their Protestant counterparts. That is because at least the RCC recognizes the duty of society to care for those children born into poverty, whereas their anti-abortion counterparts love the fetus and could care less about the infants born.
Unfortunately, nick, it is about legislation.
To have the goal all women want of SAFE, LEGAL and RARE for abortion, we need laws protecting this right. Some states are making it almost impossible for abortion clinics to open up. How can the goal be reached if there are no safe, legal places where woman may get abortion care?
I see this in a way as trying to force women to have babies that they then have no other option (unless they want to be driven into extreme poverty) but to give up for adoption.
The glory days of when young women where whisked out of sight to have babies that were taken from them so the rich can adopt these children. It is a horrible system. A patrician system that was horrible for women.
Until we commit to taking care of every mother and child there is no other way. We cannot continue to fight this same battle, over and over, because some people would make another choice in life(or so they think, they have no idea until it actually happens to them).
Sorry, but for the majority of women, having a first trimester abortion is safer, less traumatic and less emotionally devastating than giving a living baby up for adoption.
The burden is ALWAYS on poor women. Because rich women have always had, and will always have, easy and safe access to abortion