Republicans Want To Politicize Your Uterus. Again.
July 17th, 2008Last gasp of horseshit:
Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid - NYTimes.com
Thanks Marshall for the tweet about this.
I can’t wait for our new A Handmaid’s Tale inspisired future.
Let’s all build a more intrusive, judgmental and evil world together! In the name of Jesus!
Vote Obama in 2008. o
Tags: conservatives showing how lame they and their Jesus are, douchey, GOP, Jesus Out of My Vagina
-
This entry is filed under link. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You may leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Please read the Terms of Service before leaving a response.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Total bullshit.
Counting down the days until Bush is out.
Jesus Christ sucks a big one.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Don’t you know that religious fundamentalism is bad only if it is Muslim?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am
What the fuck?
You know what? Talk to me about abortion after we have resolved the issue of unwanted children, abused children, overcrowded prisons, welfare abuses, and have provided affordable birth control for every person in the country. Then we can talk about abortion, based on its merits, and the fact that it might actually be an issue then.
And it is pro-choice, not pro-abortion, people.
Individuals may have any opinion he or she likes, but unless that individual has had a uterus, his opinion is moot.
/rant
Thanks, Jon, for posting this. I missed this in my sweep this morning.
If McCain wins, I will be moving to Vancouver. You and your family would be welcome anytime (as long as you bring Leta).
July 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I really should stop being surprised by the jackassery of this current administration.
The real threat to women’s reproductive autonomy isn’t an out-and-out overturning of Roe v. Wade, but this sort of incremental chipping away of access.
Vote Obama, indeed!
P.S. Also, contribute what you can to Planned Parenthood; they help fund training for doctors who are (big surprise) getting less and less education in abortion procedures:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DD1239F93AA25755C0A965958260
(It’s an old article, but the statistics have only gotten worse in the intervening years…)
July 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The line in the article that REALLY kills me is: “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”
Getting rid of access to The Pill = more people considering abortion. And that’s SUCH a good plan. Because, you know, what we need is more unplanned pregnancies.
Yikes. I will be completely devastated if we have to go through another 4 years of this crap.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
*groan* As a Christian, this pisses me off. It’s as though thoughts pertaining to my uterus or my sexual preference are the only legitimate “moral issues”. What about poverty? (Jesus DID say “Whatever you’ve done to the least of these, you’ve done to me” and I don’t think he had tiny fetuses in mind) What about the environment (rewind to Genesis where God appoints man to care for creation)? What about living lives set apart from the “empire” and doing good to our neighbors? Aren’t those valid, if not crucially more important moral issues? And I love to remind my republican friends that they’ve had 8 years of leadership from a pro-life Republican president and nothing has changed re:abortion. In the same breath, I understand the sort of sentiment most people have regarding abortion, but would much rather them channel their feelings and passions into reducing the numbers of necessary abortions than simply eradicating it. After all, abortions will happen no matter the legality of the issue… they always have. *sigh* I hope more and more Christians can see through this horse-shit and dig deeper within their beliefs. I’m convinced more Christians would vote Democrat if Republicans weren’t hijacking and manipulating the emotions of many well meaning followers of Christ.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
It’s nice to see the Republicans doing something based on facts and not religion. /s
In Texas, with their abstinence only sex ed. , they have the highest rate of sexual activity (53%) and lowest rate of condom use in the country. Of course Jenna Bush was a virgin on her wedding night because of her strong family values, like following in her Daddys foot steps and getting busted for drinking more than once. What a bunch of hypocrites.
“Won’t someone think of the children!’ *Helen Lovejoy’s voice*
July 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
McCain apparently doesn’t even know what birth control is, either that or indirectly talking about sex makes him uncomfortable…
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/mccain_respect_contraception/?r=922&id=574-1286371-V9uFifx
Obama FTW!
July 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Jezebel.com was all over this yesterday… I spent a goodly amount of time getting angry about it.
http://jezebel.com/5025756/bush-administration-memo-tries-to-define-birth-control-as-abortion
July 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Don’t forget our health care organizations that pay for Viagra but not for birth control…McCain couldn’t dodge this question fast enough!!
July 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Excuse me, Meowski, Jesus does not suck a big one. Using Jesus as an excuse for your own personal agenda of control and hate does.
Go Obama.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
In my personal experience with him he does and as an ex-evangelical I have a pretty good understanding of how religion works. The whole concept of Jesus has a personal agenda attached to it - just take an art history class. No matter how much they would have you believe that it is about your personal “relationship” with him, it is really about the personal agenda of those in power staying in control.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
How and why did women EVER lose our power to control our bodies? To allow MEN to make laws and decisions about what should be ours and ours alone to control? How did it happen? I believe it started with religion and that has not ended yet by any means.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
77% of anti-abortion leaders are men.
100% of them will never be pregnant.
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
It does, however, have a monopoly on real estate.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I’m confused. First they condemn homosexuals. Now they’re making it impossible for heterosexuals to engage in the national past time. When is it going to sink in that reproductive rights aren’t just women’s issues, they’re heterosexual issues? When women’s biological rights come under fire, all the men in their lives are going to be mightily pissed off about that, too.
So, what’s the strategy there?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I’m all for women having rights, but from what I understand this is more about health providers’ rights - if they don’t feel comfortable giving birth control, abortions, or any other procedure they shouldn’t be forced to do it.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Vote Obama ‘08 indeed!
I think it’s ridiculous that politicians think they have a right to stick their conservative noses in places they don’t belong - like, in women’s vaginas for example.
Gross.
I think it can best be summed up like this - ‘I’ve got nothing against Jesus, it’s his fan club I can’t stand.’
July 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Briefly, I have to defend my Jesus: It’s what people profess to do in his name that supposedly entitles them to these ridiculous crusades. They think if they slap a Jesus sticker on anything, that enables them to shove their agendas all up in my craw, just so they can keep everything else out of it. Just let me choose. Stop exploiting my Jesus, people.
@brebolivar - I have some really impacted wisdom teeth. At my last dentist appointment, the dentist told me he wasn’t comfortable with extracting the teeth, and he’d be able to recommend me to an orthodontist whom he trusted with the more difficult yanking. So, would healthcare providers have a comparable alternative regarding birth control? It seems like it could get even more complicated, trying to affix a collective pro-life conscience to healthcare on top of trying to dictate individuals’ sensibilities.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
After finding out about this yesterday, I filled out the form on NARAL.org to tell my senator that I think this is a henious proposal: https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009=bjoyykshg1.app46b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3253
And last night? Sen. Sherrod Brown wrote back to me saying that he would do everything in his power to kill this legislation. There aren’t a lot of reasons to be proud to live in Ohio sometimes, but Sen. Brown is certainly one of them.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
As is the case with so many things, the vocal fringe become the identity of the group. I’m a solid Christian and I also support choice. Please don’t dump on Jesus because of the narrow-minded reps of the Right (really Wrong). Remember–Jesus wasn’t that way. He hung out with the regular Joes and those with lots of problems…and he disdained the self-thought righteous. I SO wish that the real love of Christ permeated the loudmouthed “‘Christian’ Right.” But it doesn’t. So please don’t blast the truth–blast the hypocrisy. But they are indeed two different things.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Thanks, katliz, for the link. I immediately went there and sent a message to my congressman and then sent the link to all of my friends. When I told my husband about this legislation, he said, “I thought that issue had been settled.” Folks, this is an on-going battle and we must stay vigilant.
And I already have my Obama08 bumper sticker on my car.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Isn’t it amazing how ridiculous this is? I believe this is a huge reason why I’m moving out of the country (for the 2nd time).
@SuzieQ- Thank you for reminding all of us about the point you made. It seems that whenever I bring that up, people act as if they’ve never heard it before.
Obama 08!
July 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I have so often been shocked by this administration that it may just tip my uterus back the other way.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@mayiwrite - as i was taught in medical school ethics class, it is our responsibility to recommend a physician to perform the procedure if we don’t feel comfortable with it, which according to many doctors happens quite often. it seems to me that this silly bill isn’t necessary when this is already happening among doctors with pro-life views…but perhaps i just don’t get it?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Not the only politicizing of the uterus going on these days I’m afraid…
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5340949&page=1
July 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Grantees must “certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.”
And there is no reason to believe the provision supercedes any ethical obligation of a providers regarding procedures they find objectionable. The thing is meaningless in practice and of marginal symbolic value.
But. You’re arguing it’s okay to discriminate against people who don’t agree with you, and that the provision forces an opinion on others? C’mon. You’re smarter than this. THINK.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:01 am
The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.
From what I just read, this seems to indicate that a medical institution can’t discriminate when hiring simply based on the applicants views of abortion. So if a potential new health care professional does not feel comfortable performing an abortion he or she would not have to participate in such a procedure and could not be discriminated against during the hiring process.
If this is the correct interpretation, what is the problem? Open mindedness goes both ways, Jon. It’s okay to not be okay with participating in abortion procedures.
Personally, I object to abortion. I hate it. I think it is wrong. But I am not out campaigning to take away that right from anybody. Furthermore, I am repulsed when I hear of the Christian right (I am a Christian by the way) voting based on that issue. Back in January I blogged about how ridiculous it is to do so, especially due to the FACT that Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices were in the majority (6 out of 9) when the Roe v Wade case made abortion legal. And Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices outnumber Democratic appointments by 7 to 9, yet Roe v Wade is not going anywhere. It’s very obvious this is a right that will not be taken away, and I wish we’d stop basing our votes on a candidates’ opinions on abortion.
As it is ridiculous for Christians to vote Republican based on abortion, I believe it is just as ridiculous to be outraged by making discrimination illegal based on an applicant’s opinions of the issue. Bigotry doesn’t only come from the right.
PS: Go Obama.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:14 am
@brebolivar
@nobody
@Donny Pauling
I appreciate your point(s), but here’s the thing that’s so insidious about this proposal– it is yet another way for the current executive branch to circumvent the Supreme-Court-secured law of the land by applying oppressive and unreasonable strictures (see: parental/spousal/judicial consent; waiting periods; subjection to bogus prenatal “information,” etc.). This sort of bullshit falls right in line with “abstinence-only education” (and I use the term “education” ironically)– that is, it’s all about ideology and not reality.
And Donny, I’m not “for” abortion, either; I don’t know a single person who is. But I have two close friends who had late-term abortions due to HORRIFIC fetal abnormalities, and one of them had (yes, it’s true) the procedure the dickwads of the religious right have made us all refer to as “partial birth abortion.”
LET ME TELL YOU ALL SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT– this was the ONLY way she was guaranteed to come out of the situation alive and able to have further children (which she eventually did, but I personally think the most important part is that SHE LIVED).
I’m pretty much an atheist (though I do pray, weirdly enough), but I give thanks to whatever god/s there may be for her competent medical team, and that she not only had good health insurance, but lived in a major city where doctors willing/able to perform the necessary operation were available. (And let me just say that she would have needed A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN MY PRAYERS if she’d lived in South Dakota.)
leesavee is right– this insidious proposal is all about the language, SPECIFICALLY:
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
Fact is, government has no business telling doctors (or other health-care workers) what’s best for their patients, and government has no business making health-care workers sign papers, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, especially when it’s it means agreeing with what that government’s particular notion of health care means.
Can anyone say “Stalin”?
I’m tellin’ ya… Chipping away, chipping away, chipping away…
July 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
J. Bo,
I think it would be much more “Stalin Like” to force medical professionals to participate in performing abortions. That is a scary idea, and this proposes to make sure that doesn’t happen.
What am I missing here?
- D -
July 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I have been pro-choice longer than I’ve been able to vote. I’ve also been a feminist longer than I’ve been able to vote. Our foreign aid policy regarding the global gag-rule and no aid to countries that promote abortion etc. has been and continues to be wrong. I want abortion to be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE. Birth control and adequate and informative sex education is necessary. Not abstinence ony sex ed. BTW, I live in Texas. Yes, we are ruled over by the Republicans now. Our Democrats in the Tx legislature have their balls tied up like a prize bucking bull in a rodeo… no room to manuevor. And we can’t elect a Democrat to the US Senate to save ourselves. Writing to Congress is about as effective as sending it on a paper airplane. I get lots of trash back telling me how they have a great position on XYZ and that my opinion is worth nothing. Anyway, Thanks for being pro-choice and for Obama!
July 19th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Donny,
There is NO law, federal or state, that forces medical professionals to participate in performing abortions, and that’s not likely to change… EVER (nor should it, for that matter). In fact, despite our much-vaunted (and much-threatened) separation of church and state, religion-funded hospitals (the large majority of which are Catholic) around the country hew to religious precepts before medical ones (denying contraception, abortion, prenatal genetic testing/counseling, etc.) and do so quite legally.
My point is that this executive proposal AND ITS LANGUAGE IN PARTICULAR are yet a further attempt to limit, narrow, and make inaccessible women’s health-care choices.
Look at it this way:
Let’s say you’re a woman. Let’s even say you’re a church-going, lawfully-wed, virgin-until-you-were-married Christian woman. You live in a small town in South Dakota. You want reliable contraception, and have decided that The Pill is your best option. But there’s only ONE local pharmacy, and the pharmacist in question believes The Pill is AGAINST HIS GOD’S WILL, and therefore will not fill your prescription (which presumes you’ve got health insurance that covers contraception, AND a doctor who ALSO believes contraception is holy according to his personal god, which means that’s some damn fine and no-doubt expensive health insurance). So you use condoms. But maybe you DON’T one time, or maybe one breaks… and you need the “morning after” pill.
Well, you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK, Mrs. Donny, ’cause the Federal Government has decreed an insane and decidedly UN-medical standard of what constitutes “abortion,” and you’d better keep your damn knees together if you’re not willing to conceive a child each and every time you have sex.
See where I’m going with this? See where these sorts of executive mandates are going?
It’s not about forcing anyone to do something s/he finds morally repugnant; it’s about broadening the definition of “abortion” and increasing government control over medical issues.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
‘It’s not about forcing anyone to do something s/he finds morally repugnant; it’s about broadening the definition of “abortion”’
So people can have their opinions about moral repugnancy, but they have to use _your_ words to express them?
Friend, you have an Orwell comprehension deficit. Better get that checked.