The Rude Pundit: The Ongoing Peril to Abortion Rights

[meegbear]

So let's see where we are here, now that Republicans control the House and a majority of state legislatures:

1. Majority Leader Eric Cantor and 173 other representatives have co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act (seriously, who names Republican bills? It's like there's a bunch of inbred, brain-damaged teenagers kept in a basement in the Capitol who are allowed to play Xbox, masturbate, and come up with titles like this one). The law would limit any funds from anything even remotely related to the government from going to an abortion except in cases where the woman's life is in danger and "if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest." You got that? Since "forcible rape" is not a defined term in federal criminal law, it varies from state to state, which means that no one will be sure exactly what this covers and where. Also, the bill gives even more cover to, say, the pharmacist who doesn't want to fill your day-after pill scrip; refusal to do one's job is now a protected civil right under this bill. Oh, and you could no longer use money from your pre-tax health savings account if you wish to have an abortion because in some convoluted way that means the government is paying part of it. (You can use it for your chiropractor, though.) By the way, 13 women have co-sponsored this.

2. The Arkanas Senate "passed a bill today to prohibit federal funding for abortions offered through an insurance exchange in Arkansas except where the life of the mother is in danger," ignoring calls that rape and incest be included. The governor has said he would support whatever bill the legislature passes. The Pennsylvania Senate is advancing a similar bill.

3. Over in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, who cut state funding for women's health and family-planning clinics (even though federal matching funds would have covered it), on Monday addressed an anti-choice rally in Trenton, saying that he stands with them and that the issue's "time has come."

4. Out in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has promised to fast-track a bill that forces women seeking abortions to have a sonograms prior to the procedure. Perry, whose state faces a fiscal meltdown to the tune of a $27 billion shortfall, declared it emergency legislation that must be dealt with immediately by the legislature. The Wyoming House rejected a similar bill.

5. Meanwhile, the number of self-induced abortions is on the rise again in the United States, even though it's hard to determine how many there are actually are. Women in places where restrictions have made abortion access nearly impossible are using drugs, herbs, even coat hangers.

6. Meanwhile, a massive study from Denmark demonstrated that women who have abortions are not at any risk to their mental health. Having a baby, though? It nearly doubles the rate at which women sought mental health treatment. There's two ways to view this: first, that the image of the weeping, regretful woman who got an abortion is a lie; and, second, that more needs to be done for women suffering from post-partum depression.

Denmark, by the way, has far more liberal abortion laws and a lower abortion rate than the United States, 13 per 1000 pregnancies in Denmary, 20 per 1000 in the United States. It would not be a stretch to say that universal health care makes it easier for women to have children and lowers the abortion rate by over 25%, a more significant number than any restriction has accomplished in the United States. It seems fairly simple: if you truly believe in the right to life, then you believe that the living, not just the potentially living, need to be taken care of. If your goal is to stop abortions and not just control women, you'd have to support universal health care.

But that kind of logic and compassion does not extend to our right-wing. It is far, far easier to restrict and restrict the procedure. It is far, far easier to hope for the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is far, far easier to carve their religious beliefs into the bodies of American women.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[RT Atlanta]

1. Spot on

k&r

[TheWraith]

2. "It's like there's a bunch of inbred, brain-damaged teenagers kept in a basement in the Capitol"

That would be the Republican caucus.

Seriously though, I don't agree that there's a "real" threat here. It's the same ongoing mental masturbation that the pro-lifers go on about on a daily basis, trying to appease that segment of their base. The truth is the Republican Party can NEVER let Roe vs. Wade go, because it would end the greatest fundraising tool they've ever had to milk money out of the religiously insane. Case in point, they had the House, Senate, and the White House for four full years, and not ONCE did they try to get rid of Roe.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCKit]

4. Someone should remind the nutjobs on the far right...

that this will ONLY result in the U.S. being over-run by black and brown children. That is one of THEIR memes.

It's a pity they can't ban abortion for only white girls (impregnated by white males), 'cause that's what they really want.

[Maru Kitteh]

8. +1

[femrap]

5. Please, someone tie

Cantor's dick in a knot and slap some tape over his mouth...just joking.

[dembotoz]

6. time to bring back out the coat hangers

hold them high

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCKit]

9. Aackkk!!!! (the sub-thread)

[uppityperson]

10. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. SCOTUS reversing Roe V. Wade would create a nightmare for the right wing

At the moment, the right wing is shrewd enough to simply make abortion so difficult to obtain that it is virtually unable to access in some parts of the country without having to actually overturn Roe and/or try to ban it outright. Although I hesitate to suggest it (because of the very real (bad) effect it will have on a lot of women, especially in "Red" states), at this point, Roe has been so undermined by all these restrictions and exceptions that SCOTUS overturning Roe might almost be preferable to having to continue fighting a losing battle over restriction after restriction that ultimately has had (or will have) the same de facto effect as overturning Roe. More importantly, the resulting uproar if abortion were able to be banned completely would likely be unbearable and electorally disastrous for anti-choice politicians (and their enablers) everywhere, especially since none of them will likely be able to agree on what kind of penalties to impose, whom to impose them on, etc. and it might help create a groundswell of support for legislatively codifying freedom of choice nationally or locally. :shrug: IMHO for far too long, the anti-choicers have been able to wring "electoral juice" out of the issue by running for office pledging to make it illegal but never being forced to actually accomplish anything other than adding to the lengthening list of restrictions nor are they ever able to articulate what things will actually be like the day after. Right now, the momentum is the anti-choicers and pro-choicers are being forced into defending our increasingly shrinking gains that were made under Roe. Of course, to me, what's scariest about the right-wing push against Roe is that their efforts have now expanded to include contraception as well and if SCOTUS reverses Roe, then it potentially puts the Griswold ruling at risk as well, which is simply unthinkable.
I wonder how far out we need to get before enough people start revolting against these right wing efforts to control people's reproductive lives? As far as I'm concerned, the only regulation that government should have over abortion is ensuring that the people performing them are appropriately trained and licensed and that their facilities are appropriate (just like any other healthcare professional). Other than that, I don't personally believe that government should have any more say about what happens in regards to people's reproductive lives. I mean, why does government need to be so involved in our own personal lives THAT much???
:wtf:

[w8liftinglady]

12. As a resident of texas,I can assure you...

what goes on in front of and behind closed doors are two different things.
A co-worker who crucified me for wanting babies killed quietly pulled me aside to help her find a facility.
as it turned out, abstinence isn't all it was made out to be in Texas.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Hypocrisy about abortion

is also something that anti-choicers are never ever held accountable for either. Remember former Congressmen Bob Barr? :banghead: :puke:

[Maru Kitteh]

17. I'm sure HER friend/relative wasn't a dirty slut like all those other women who need abortions

Because that's always how it works.

Other women who have abortions are loose, nasty, lazy trash who need to learn to keep their shut and take responsibility for their actions.

Women like your co-worker and anyone she cares about who need an abortion are merely victims of unfortunate circumstance who have legitimate reasons for needing to have their "situation" taken care of.

[mistertrickster]

14. Excellent post. In a sense, Dems lost by winning on this issue

just as the CONs would lose if they finally succeeded in overturning Roe.

CONs can trot out "don't vote for baby-killers" every election, and even though I've been rammed with "pro-life" strollers for counter-protesting their "summers of mercy" here at ground zero of the abortion wars, that election campaigning works.

The CONs have a ready-made issue that never fails to motivate their base--they can whittle back the abortion protections and if that fails, just shoot the abortion providers in the head.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Thanks for your comment

One thing that I've never fully understood is how anti-choicers (and anti-gay crusaders for that matter) seemingly have unlimited time and energy to devote to focusing on OTHER people's sexual and reproductive lives. Do they even have lives? Do they not have ANYTHING better to do with their time and energy? I mean, I couldn't even imagine putting so much time and energy into worrying about what my neighbors, friends, et. al do every waking minute of their lives let alone just focusing on my own life and responsibilities.
:wtf:

[mistertrickster]

16. My personal theory is that it's all about sex.

If abortion had nothing to do with sex -- and proscribing sex -- then the FundyCONs would have no interest in it.

The FundyCONs must make and keep abortion illegal because they hate the sex that led to pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy is God's punishment for fornication. You make abortion legal, and sexuality -- especially WOMEN'S sexuality -- goes unpunished.

They don't really care about "babies." If they did, they'd be demanding comprehensive free gov't health care for all births and newborns. They'd be demanding subsidized food programs and day care.

They don't give a damn about the babies after they are born . . .