Posted on 10/21/2010 8:01:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The almost satirical aspect of some Republican Tea Party candidates – Christine O'Donnell's failure to read the Constitution as far as the First Amendment being just the latest example – belies the serious threat they pose to women's rights as crusaders against reproductive choice.
How is it consistent with a distrust of government to re-involve it, beginning in the year 2011 – 37 years after the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court – in women's personal lives? And how will that, in any way, restore our economy or reduce the federal deficit?
These new Republicans go beyond past Republican orthodoxy that would, as if magnanimously, allow exceptions to an abortion ban in cases of rape or incest. To allow such exceptions had been the position of former Republican presidents – including Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes. Yet the new Tea Party Republicans insist – in a fashion the Taliban would admire – that abortions be prevented even where crimes are involved. Pedophiles will enjoy the fruits of their labors.
While Senate candidate Dino Rossi has claimed, in the past, to support an exception to an abortion ban for rape victims, no such exception existed in a truly strange bill he co-sponsored in the Washington Senate in 2000 that would have entitled all unborn children to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And Rossi opposes even sex education funding.
Much has been made over Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, running against U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, dismissing the plight of raped women by suggesting, "Turn lemons into lemonade." But that contempt for rape victims is common these days in Republican circles.
Tea Party hero Ken Buck, running for the Senate in Colorado, has stated, "I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest." Buck refused to prosecute a 2005 rape case in Colorado because the victim has a prior relationship with the accused.
In the Alaska Republican primary Joe Miller defeated incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, now a write-in contender, by using her pro-choice position as a wedge issue. On his website he states, "I am unequivocally pro-life and life must be protected from the moment of conception to the time of natural death."
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul maintains his father's inconsistent, kooky libertarianism by criticizing government regulation, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while effectively advocating for the bedroom police by stating on his website, "I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue."
Not to be outdone, former witchcraft-dabbler O'Donnell – who has condemned even masturbation – has stated, "Women are starting to come forward to break the silence about the mental and physical scars left on their lives by abortion." As if the scars of bearing a rapist's child would be easier to bear.
The Republicans running to serve in Olympia aren't any better. A typical state legislative candidate is Mark Hargrove, running far to the right in the 47th Legislative District, who checked every anti-choice option available on the Project Vote Smart questionnaire – including answering "no" in response to the question: "Should abortion be legal when the pregnancy results from incest or rape?"
Never mind a state revenue shortfall that is cutting programs for children with disabilities – apparently the state needs to ensure girls are forced to bear their own fathers' children.
What's all the more galling about this Tea Party war on women is that it is largely being waged in the name of Sarah Palin and covered up with cute monikers like "Mama Grizzlies." Like Palin winking in her vice presidential debate, the joke's on us.
It appears to be quite an evolution. I can recall that during the 2006 state legislative session Republicans made every effort to politicize sex crimes against children. Now it turns out Republicans would require children bear the children that result from those crimes.
But is this really an evolution?
Also in 2006, 27 Washington House Republicans voted in favor of allowing insurers to cancel the insurance of health care clinics, providers, and religious organizations due to acts of arson or malicious mischief. Effectively, they would have allowed those firebombing women's health clinics to determine insurance availability. In that sense, the new Tea Party war on women is really just a continuation of an older one.
Headline: Tea Party Candidates Win Primaries(women and minorities hardest hurt.)
O’Donnell has probably forgotten more about the First Amendment than this moron ever learned. At least O’Donnell knows what the First Amendment says. This little boy Brendan Williams is a clueless moron.
It’s fatuous and disingenuous to claim O’Donnell is ignorant of the First Amendment when it was she who knew enough about it to have asked Coons to name its five freedoms.
Coons is the big dummy because he was only able to name ONE.
Honestly, I’m fed up.
It's always good to toss your credibility away in the opening sentence.
If he thinks that the Tea Party is waging a war on women, he should check out the Religion of Islam.
Roe v Wade... The only demonstratably successful program in my life time
54 million dead Americans (not counting their kids)
And today... 1 in 5 American pregnancies terminated
Grats democrats. Mission accomplished
In the word(s) of a famous Communist Leader “Nyt!”
The TEA Party is led by women, have they not noticed that?
The last time I remember seeing those statistics, the percentage was minuscule.
Typical rat hit job.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that only about one in 200 rapes results in pregnancy (something about the woman being stressed largely prevents it). And not all of those pregnant through rape choose to kill the kid.
I find it a bit odd when it’s a man tryin’ to scream ‘womens rights’.
I find it odd when it’s some white, elitist screaming about racism at every turn.
It’s always a heads up—that they’re up to something and it isn’t for the ones they clamor for.
When he can go through an abortion or birth and tell me all about it, then I MAY listen.
Apparently, it’s considered from 1 to almost 5%; it’s hard to say when abortions make the evidence disappear. I’ve also read that the some victims are assaulted by the abortionists who know they are unlikely to be reported. How sick is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.