GOP War on Women?
Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:10pm
Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
Please share this email today.
Sources:
1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=6
"Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=7
2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=8
3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=9
4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=10
5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=11
6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/
7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=12
8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop...
9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=13
"GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=14
10. Ibid.
Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-663882-hYKfgTx&t=15
Tue, 02/22/2011 - 5:25pm
#2
Agreed. I'm speechless on all
Agreed. I'm speechless on all of this.
Tue, 02/22/2011 - 5:45pm
#3
See, this is where that "the
See, this is where that "the Democrats and Republicans are not the same" argument comes in. As spineless and beholden to corporate interests as they can be, they Dems would never introduce and push sh*t like this.
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 4:33am
#4
Unfortunately...
Republicans are just playing to their base before an election year. If more people who tend to vote for democrats were anti abortion, you had best believe that would reflect in the bills they file and the votes they take.
Until elected democrats make a clear concerted stand for women's reproductive rights, (not just a few representatives, almost always female,) I take their relative lack of outrage as tacit approval.
Politicians, democrat or republican, don't care about issues, they care how issues effect their status quo, their electability, etc.
Hell, Obama is the best republican president sine Reagan. And Reagan was an absolutely piss poor president.
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:27am
#5
I am appalled
by how flippantly I have, in the past, discussed the topic of allowing the embryo to grow into maturity and come out a child vs. the killing of that embryo/foetus.
This is probably one of the hardest issues of all time to deal with.
Even I, who am quite clear on most stuff, have had a lot of trouble with this.
Abortion is violence.
It is the destruction of something.
Maybe that embryo is the result of a rape, and that's another issue, but destroying the foetus is still destruction.
A woman having the "right" to do this I am inclined to go with, but it's a very strange argument.
Not many posters here advocate for the "right" for a woman to kill her one year old.
So here a question presents itself yet again. When does life start?
I possibly was the cause/supporter of an abortion in the 80's and this fact has haunted me.
This is heavy stuff and for lack of knowing any other way to handle it I side with the mother being given free-choice.
Her having free-choice, from a legal standpoint, does not mean it is necessarily the right thing to do and it does not mean that a decision to destroy a foetus won't ruin her peace of mind.
Only she knows at that particular time in that particular situation.
Ultimately, I am for no rules, which means that I believe anyone should be allowed to do anything, including kill me.( I refuse to write a book expounding on this. Not that there'd be a line of folks waiting to buy it.)
This means as well that, ultimately, I am not for governement regulation. Not of businesses or individuals.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 3:11am
#6
I have to agree with Barry
I have to agree with Barry that it's a difficult decision. From a moral standpoint, the traditional Catholic argument is often dismissed a little too quickly. I also struggle with the moral aspects of abortion. We just had our last big sonogram today...we're having another girl! The checked all the organs, the bones, hands...we got some great profile pictures. Everything looks normal. When you get your initial sonograms--well within the first trimester--you can see and hear the heartbeat.
Moral aspects are different than legal aspects, however. A mother is hosting a life form in her body. There is no contract between her and the fetus regarding her obligation to deliver this child. My wife is a good example. Not that it should matter, but with Marcella especially, Kat had violent morning sickness. It's an allergic reaction to elevated estrogen levels. She was hospitalized several times to treat severe dehydration from vomiting and couldn't hold down any food for weeks. With this pregnancy it was nearly as bad and Nov-January were pretty stressful in our household. We are not planning on having another child at this point. We always wanted two, but and pregnancy is too stressful on Kat's mental and physical health for her to go through it again (unless she wants to). If Kat ever got pregant again, I imagine that the option of abortion would be on the table. Murray Rothbard took this angle in the abortion argument and I'm inclined to agree: if the mother decides not to carry the fetus, then the fetus is a foreign invader within the mother's body. She should have the legal right not to have it in there. The dark side of this, of course, is that to take this stance is to acknowledge trimesters can't be considered in this legal argument. A mother should have the legal right to expel a child in 8th month if they want.
None of this, as I've said before, has to do with the moral aspects of abortion. It's a life. Birth is not a proper line of demarcation for life and neither are "trimesters." A child is dependent on his/her mother in the womb and is still pretty darn helpless after birth. It's a question of whether or not the government can force a mother to use her body to support another life form.
Barry, this also means that unless you are syphoning resources off another person's body, I don't think they should have the right to kill you.
hey jeff
i see this post has been viewed 173 times, but no responses. i looked at yesterday and didn't respond, maybe because i don't even know what to say... it's like we've gone backwards 25 years, back to the days of WHAM, WAC, .... we fought for those rights and now again they are being chipped away at...
time to mobilize... i know i for one have gotten complacent about taking advantage of these rights we have fought for....