Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Signs of the economic times Previous entry: House raises taxes on people with health insurance, institutes death penalty for f*cking

Anti-choice extremists own the Republican party

Image from Austin Cline.

These are very serious times.  Our military is engaged in wars in multiple nations.  Our economy is in the tank.  Our unemployment rates are staggering.  Global warming continues to get worse without much action being taken to slow it down.  But one national crisis rises above all others as the number one threat our nation faces.

Young women are having sex with men who aren't elderly GOP legislators. And they aren't getting punished for it.  Clearly, you can understand their point of view.  Who can worry about issues like the state of the environment or chronic unemployment when there are women who are probably out there right now with sleepy smiles on their faces, having had unauthorized orgasms?  Many of them are probably getting up and going to work, rubbing shoulders with other people as if they had a right, spreading their slatternly cooties all over our once-great nation that knew how to keep bitches in their place.

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider the sheer amount of attention and legislation Republicans are giving towards this task of making sure women pay for having sex. Nearly 1,000 anti-choice bills in state legislatures, a state-by-state attempt to defund Planned Parenthood after nearly shutting the federal government down to do it, and of course the radical expansion of federal powers in an attempt to keep women from spending private money on abortions that passed the House yesterday.  This is clearly issue #1, neatly disproving the skepticism I often meet from liberal men that conservatives really care that much about rolling back women's rights.

In a way, it's sort of amazing how quickly the anti-choice movement took complete ownership of the Republican party.  There used to be a distinction between the two, believe it or not.  For one thing, the movement is not just anti-abortion but anti-contraception and generally opposed to any measures that might allow sexually active people to be healthier and happier.  They've promoted abstinence-only, held rallies protesting contraception, fought against the HPV vaccine with fallacious claims that threatening young women with cervical cancer is an effective strategy to keep them virgins, and well, let me repeat that: The anti-choice movement has openly promoted the argument that you need to kill women off in order to scare other women into virginity.  Conservative groups opposed the HPV vaccine on the grounds that fewer women dying from the results of a common STD was a bad outcome because they like pointing to the corpses in order to scare girls into virginity.  They're operating under the assumption that women who have sex forsake their right to live. But not very long ago, these anti-choicers were kept in check by the Republican party, who just kept on about abortion but by and large ignored demands to restrict access to STD prevention and contraception.

Not anymore.  These fringe characters now own the Republicans.  HR3 had bundled in it the assumption that women who have sex forsake their right to life, because of the amendment that allows anti-choice hospitals to refuse to save a pregnant woman's life if doing so would kill the fetus.  The only possible reason they can imagine for keeping a pregnant woman alive is to make sure she has the baby---if you're not going to have a baby, you might as well die, too.  When you had sex, any value you had as a human being in your own right evaporated, and your only role now is a baby carrier.  That some women back this view of women is kind of amazing, and should be the subject of research into the efficiency with which human beings can compartmentalize.

Not a single Republican voted against HR3, and sadly, sixteen misogynist Democrats joined the chorus of people who are willing to sign off on the idea that a woman who is pregnant has lost her right to life except as a life support system for her fetus.  And, of course, the bulk of the GOP is getting behind this idea that we should cut off family planning funds, which is a wet dream for anti-choicers, who've long dreamt of the day that STDs run rampant and unplanned pregnancy is a given, because they feel that then and only then will they be able to scare young women into not fucking.  What keeps coming back to me is this post at Think Progress chronicling the Republican party's wholesale embrace of the idea that we should invite this health crisis into our country.  A single Indiana state senator---unsurprisingly, a woman---balked at the agenda to increase unplanned pregnancies and STD transmissions by cutting off family planning funding, and she had this to say about the situation:

In an interview with ThinkProgress this afternoon, Becker said that a lot of people share her view but are too intimidated by the political climate to voice their opposition.

My question is how.  How did anti-choicers manage to get an entire party's leadership to adopt their worldview, even though I struggle to imagine that even ordinary Republican voters really believe, deep down inside, that contraception is a menace to society and that pregnant women who can't go to term might as well die?  What does this intimidation look like?  How have anti-choicers gained so much power over Republican politicians that said politicians will do pretty much whatever they ask?  And if anti-choicers have this much power, what's next on the chopping block?  Right now, legal contraception still isn't being challenged directly, though folks like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee drop their hints.  That seems like it's still beyond the pale, but then again, cutting off family planning subsidies was considered beyond the pale not so long ago.  At what point does the radical anti-choice agenda start to run against Republicans who are more intimidated by losing their seats than by whatever the fuck it is that anti-choicers have over them? 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:11 AM • (54) Comments

Yeah, what the fuck kind of Darth Vader-y power do they have?  The disconnect between the umpteen millions of Republicans using birth control and the anti-sex people in power is really stunning.

Comment #1: Radicalhw  on  05/05  at  09:12 AM

It’s a symptom of the complete domination of the GOP by the crazies. Just a few decades ago, could you imagine the Republicans going hardcore anti-science? Could you imagine them mainstreaming open and unapologetic racism? Post-OKC, could you imagine them going back to the poisoned militia/conspiracy well? The crazies have always been there in the GOP, but in previous decades, they were able to keep them under control and out of view of the mainstream.

Usedta be the lunatic base was there to serve the party’s needs—they were the dimbulbs who would be kept in line with a few platitudes and who’d always vote the party line, no matter what. At some point, the non-crazy Republicans figured they didn’t have to latch the servants’ entrance any more, and the goons took over the joint.

Comment #2: Scott  on  05/05  at  09:14 AM

In answer to your question, in the early 1980s, the religious extremists realized that somehow they had managed to help elect a senile, mentally weak president named Ronald Reagan and they rejoiced.  They also set into motion a plan to gain more power by getting as many religious extremists elected to local offices as possible and then to parlay that into federal offices by keeping those people going.  It was a long-term plan and it worked.  The Republican nutters in Washington are now, by and large, true believers.  They don’t think that it matters what their constituents think or need because they are directed by their god.

Comment #3: DBK  on  05/05  at  09:15 AM

“slatternly cooties” = my new Rock Band band name

Comment #4: wsn  on  05/05  at  09:23 AM

I don’t know how they did it. All I have is a big FUCK YOU to all the spineless politicians who won’t stand up to this shit. It’s total bullshit that they think women should just keep their legs crossed if they don’t want to get pregnant. They have all benefited from contraception and I’m sure several have also benefited from having access to abortion. Fuck them all.

Comment #5: Livi  on  05/05  at  09:27 AM

I can’t answer the question; all I can do is amplify it by wondering how the GOP gets away with pandering to the most extreme among them while Democrats spend their time prostrating themselves before their least-committed supporters and/or those who will never ever vote for them anyway.

It’s tempting to say “the GOP has been marginalizing itself for decades and will get theirs at the ballot box very soon” but I’ve been hearing that since about 1988.

Comment #6: RickMassimo  on  05/05  at  09:34 AM

“At what point does the radical anti-choice agenda start to run against Republicans who are more intimidated by losing their seats than by whatever the fuck it is that anti-choicers have over them?”

The obvious answer to that is “when enough Republicans actually lose elections because they are (correctly) perceived as completely unhinged anti-sex wackos.”

This would involve only state and local elections, of course.  Right now there isn’t a Republican on a national level who could make it through the Republican presidential primaries and hope to get elected in the general.  The inmates are running the party asylum too well.

However, on the local level, there are a huge number of insanely red areas that will vote for the most radical anti-everything candidate — the more insane the better.  State senatorial elections are much closer.  There are a few reliably reichwing states who will dependably elect insane hard-right anti-choicers, but most senatorial candidates in most states still have to at least pay lip service to blue areas in the states they hope to represent (hence the large number of wimpy, roll-over-on-command “ConservaDem” senators representing the Democratic Party in the Senate).

If associating with the insane right never forces the Rethugs to pay a price, why should they stop being insane, and why should the Party stop paying attention to them?  As long as not holding national office (POTUS/VPOTUS) is something they are okay with, there’s not much that can be done…

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  10:01 AM

It’s a damn good question.  Even Margaret Atwood had the leaders of Gilead move slowly and then *stage a military coup where they killed all of Congress* before they could enact their misogyny. 

Even this most prescient of writers didn’t imagine a world where America peacefully slid into Gilead.

Comment #8: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  10:23 AM

If you want to get reelected as a Democrat, you should at least vote against this crap. I realize it takes real courage to speak out, but voting can be done quietly. A list of the 17 who voted for this horrible bill should be a part of the next round of emails from Planned Parenthood.

The new republicans in congress are true anti-choice believers who only care about the vocal members of their base. They were all excited about ending Medicare until the old people who voted for them started showing up at town halls and screaming at them for trying to take away their health care. Now they’re backing down from that idea. If we could increase the number of young people wiling to go to town halls and scream about losing access to health care via Planned Parenthood, I don’t know if it would have the same effect. But it could embolden the millions of others who think the crazies have gone way too far.

The Republicans genius for dehumanizing their opponents is what created this environment. People are really afraid of appearing “pro-abortion” because that’s how the GOP has branded it. They have people believing that there are baby killers on one side and really concerned, deeply spiritual and patriotic people on the other. Branding them as woman hating wackos hasn’t worked quite as well for the pro-woman side.

Comment #9: serious bette  on  05/05  at  10:24 AM

If you want to get reelected as a Democrat, you should at least vote against this crap. I realize it takes real courage to speak out, but voting can be done quietly. A list of the 17 who voted for this horrible bill should be a part of the next round of emails from Planned Parenthood.

I’ve already called and written to my congresscritter today to let her know that she will not be receiving my vote or support in the future because of this.  I don’t expect it to do any good, because Marcy almost always wins by a pretty good margin here, but I can’t in good conscience keep voting for her as the lesser evil anymore.  I’ve also called several of my family members who are sympathetic but not terribly politically engages who live in Rahall’s district to get them to call him up as well. 

But honestly, I just don’t know what to do about this.  I am getting more and more angry and demoralized by the day and I don’t know what to do about it.

Comment #10: ks  on  05/05  at  10:35 AM

> but voting can be done quietly.

Not in PA’s 12th.  At least, not on abortion and economic bills.  Not that that’s an excuse, IMO.  But Murtha, and now Critz, are definitely watched on certain votes.

Comment #11: bomberE  on  05/05  at  11:00 AM

How? I think there’s two primary reasons.

First, I think that the urge to troll is stronger than ever before. It’s something that pisses us off? That makes it a good thing.

But second, I think that the US right-wing movement has actually done a very good job of bringing all the various beliefs under one big banner. There used to be a time where one could assume that the economic conservatives would be more irreligious, and less concerned about social issues, and vice versa, where religious conservatives might want to do something about poverty or the environment, but that time has passed. They’ve crossed the t.

Now the conservative religion has found a way to link social and economic conservatism together under their religion, instead of forcing them apart. To me, that’s the biggest reason for the success of the radicals.

Comment #12: Karmakin  on  05/05  at  11:15 AM

wondering how the GOP gets away with pandering to the most extreme among them while Democrats spend their time prostrating themselves before their least-committed supporters and/or those who will never ever vote for them anyway.

It makes much more sense if you understand that both parties are working for our reptilian corporate overlords. Looking “spineless” is the most plausible way that the (majority of) Dems can conceal their willing support for Wall Street over ordinary Americans. They can’t appear to have a spine on social issues because it would make their apparent spinelessness on economic issues all the more curious.

Also, because young people, and especially young women, get caught up in a vicious cycle where neither party represents them, so they disengage, and then the parties pay even less attention to them. If young women showed up at town halls and made noise like elderly people whose Medicare had been threatened or like Tea Partiers whose worldview is threatened, there’d be no chance of any of this crap being anything other than the albatross around the Republicans’ neck. But they don’t show up, because they’ve never been given any reason to think that the current system has any concern for them at all.

Comment #13: felagund  on  05/05  at  11:21 AM

In a way, it’s sort of amazing how quickly the anti-choice movement took complete ownership of the Republican party.

Provided they don’t fuck around with the money.  As long as the money people are kept happy, they can pantysniff to their heart’s content.

You claim they have power; the problem is that they have been given power only where it doesn’t matter to the plutocrats.  Rich women (people) can always get what they want - the rich always do, abnd they’re increasingly above the law.  And who in that circle gives a shit anymore about the rights of middle-class and poor women (people)?

That’s why they have power - there are two Americas and they only exercise it where it can inconvenient owned America rather than the owners.

Comment #14: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/05  at  11:22 AM

Let me expand on that.  The Republican party and a large number of Democrats exist to carry out two functions:

i, To funnel a greater and greater amount of wealth in America to a small proportion of the population
ii, To keep the proles occupied while doing this.

The culture wars keep the proles occupied. This is why they are important to the Republican party.  the loons who fight them are tools fpr the guys (and it is mainly guys) pulling the strings, whose first and only real priority is economic.

Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/05  at  11:26 AM

9: The Republicans genius for dehumanizing their opponents is what created this environment.

I think this may be giving too much credit to the GOP.  There has always been a huge swathe of America that dehumanizes others: It’s what made slavery possible, not to mention the wholesale theft of land from the First Nations.  What the GOP has done is merely to tap into this, organize it and focus it on issues that are of importance to the people who might otherwise make trouble for the ruling class.

Comment #16: togolosh  on  05/05  at  11:32 AM

I have family members who have Fox News on constantly.  They have changed as a result.  It is possible to warp the worldview of otherwise reasonable people so much that they can’t logically address actions that are not in their best interests.  Fox has been completely successful at creating an us v. them mentality, where us = conservatives (and always right) and them = everyone else (and always wrong). 

I can’t step into a reproductive rights discussion, for instance, without immediately hearing about all of the fictional women who go in for late-term abortions between hair appointments, and isn’t that awful?  I know that I’m supposed to be able to knock down the strawman and bring the conversation back to reality, but you know what?  They won’t let me.  Reality is not on the table. 

My mom, who is fairly center on most issues, was developing an increasingly disturbing world-view for a few years.  When she stopped listening to conservative talk radio she became a reasonable person again.  This message from Fox News and conservative radio is like a constant drumbeat, and I honestly think that it hypnotizes a bunch of people to the extent that they don’t see how they are hurting themselves.  There is no outside for them;  there is only the message, and the message pretty much disables their ability to think.

Comment #17: Eileen  on  05/05  at  11:34 AM

Phoenician, you speak the truth. 

Unfortunately…

Comment #18: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  11:39 AM

They’ve worked this trick in significant part by driving decent people out of day-to-day politics.The politics of personal attack has a two-prong effect: first, it makes a lot of people who might run for office or staff campaigns think twice about whether they want their lives turned upside down, assholes cursing them in public, their belongings vandalized and so forth; second, it turns potential voters and volunteers off the political process, so that fewer people vote in caucuses and primaries, making them easier to game with a dedicated base. Same thing at the national level, but with a slightly different dynamic because of the big money.

And I think Eileen is right about the propaganda machine: all of this evil stuff gets said with such certainty and in such reasonable voices that you’ve got no reason to think it isn’t true.

Comment #19: paul  on  05/05  at  11:47 AM

I like “Unauthorized Orgasms” as a band name. And as a concept. More as a concept, probably.

Comment #20: benvolio  on  05/05  at  11:59 AM

American political conservatism is about dominance & hierarchy & control, and clearly their more subtly manipulative attempts to rein in wayward women haven’t worked, so what else are they to do?  They’ll apparently go a long way to impose a clear and easily understandable social order, and too many of us in the middle classes assume that our relative privilege will endure and let them continue to punish those Not Like Us.

It sucks, but at this point I’m kinda relieved I never had kids, and doubly so that I don’t have to raise a daughter among these psychos. 

Comment #21: latts  on  05/05  at  12:03 PM

I think pro-choicers are losing because they’ve unilaterally surrendered on the question of whether abortion is tantamount to “killing a human being.”  In the 90s, Camille Paglia and Naomi Wolf both argued that pro-choicers should admit that abortion is killing, but is nonetheless something that women need to do anyway.  Problem is, that’s a terrible argument, and it shouldn’t be surprising that it’s also a losing argument.  A winning argument, which I think is based on solid science, is that at the time the vast majority of abortions are performed, a fetus is not developed to the point of having conscious thought, self awareness, pain perception, or any other mental attribute such that it could be called a “whole, separate, unique, living human being.”  Pro-choicers need to make this argument forcefully and often, because all other arguments will fall on deaf ears if you don’t first convincingly rebut the premise that abortion equals “killing babies.”

Comment #22: Miguel Bloomfontosis  on  05/05  at  12:12 PM

Miguel, it’s worse than that, because even if you convince them of the facts about a fetus, they’ll insist it just isn’t self aware YET.  And the damn slut should still carry it because it will be human someday.

And if the pregnancy threatens her life?  Well, as the Catholic bishops stated just a few months ago, thaw a noble way to die: needlessly sacrificing your life for a failed pregnancy.  Heaven’s guaranteed now!

And then there’s Bill OReilly who let us all know that pregnancy NEVER threatens the life of the mother.

It would be nice if facts worked; if the facts women are human beings with the right of self-automy and bodily integrity and the capability of rational thought wwere given the weight they deserve.  But we don’t live in that country.

Comment #23: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  12:34 PM

@17 Eileen:

I personally would sacrifice most of what I have in order to have a cure for LSFD (Late-Stage Fox Dementia), which has pretty much turned my dad into someone I can’t even talk to, about anything (Dad’s whole side of the extended family, actually), and hasn’t done much to improve Mom’s personality either.

I suspect that the reason nobody blogs about ways to cure LSFD is because it never gets cured.

Comment #24: mr_subjunctive  on  05/05  at  12:43 PM

Miguel: 
Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion is something I think every pro-choicer should read.  She shows that even if one concedes for the sake of argument that a fetus has the same moral value as a fully developed human, it does not follow that abortion is “unjust,” and she also argues (correctly, I think) that conceding that initial point allows one to make a far narrower argument that is, in theory, stronger than an argument that relies on the pregnant person having greater moral value than the fetus. 
Unfortunately, most antis (or people in general?) are imprecise thinkers, and I am not sure they are capable of thinking beyond “but the babies!” It’s a shame that we can’t use logic with these people, but you’re right.  It’s not really the time to be making careful, subtle, sound arguments, because we’re dealing with the kind of people who are too likely to get distracted along the way.

Comment #25: mamram  on  05/05  at  12:47 PM

Both parties (that is the Democrats and the relatively sane portions of the Republican party) are going after the same demographic. “Swing voters”. It’s not so much about funneling money to the rich, it’s about making sure that property values are rising, that retirement funds are rising, and that people who are not as successful as them are constantly reminded and punished for their “failure”. 

That one can do this AND funnel money to the rich at the same time (in fact you need to) is simply gravy.

Comment #26: Karmakin  on  05/05  at  12:57 PM

Just listening to your podcast and I have to point out, when you talk about how Trump’s “I had a friend and he didn’t want the baby but he ended up having the baby and he’s like, the happiest guy in the world now” story doesn’t just not consider that a woman might have a SAY and FEELINGs about what happens in her body, it takes her out of the equation entirely! I mean, he literally was saying that “HE” had the baby. Him. Not her, not even them. HIM.

Comment #27: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/05  at  12:59 PM

mamram:

The Judith Jarvis Thomson-style argument also runs into the covert (sometime overt) misogyny and sex-phobia that tend to go along with anti-choice positions. Sure, a woman who has been raped (in a way that’s acceptable to conservatives) and maybe a woman struck with a sudden illness has the moral stature to “deserve” an abortion, they’ll argue, but all the women who are merely “careless” and “use abortion as a form of birth control” (um) deserve to be punished by carrying the fetus to term and then raising it. (There’s a lot of talk about how abortion is avoiding the consequences of one’s actions.) Meanwhile the fetus, of course, not having been born yet, is “innocent” and doesn’t deserve the fate of a kidneyless einstein or menuhin.

The part about raising the born infant as punishment is particularly interesting to me in conjunction with the innocence argument. Because years and years of utter physical dependence on someone who wanted you never to have existed sounds like the kind of punishment someone really mean would wish on their worst enemy, not an “innocent” baby. But, as you say, most anti-choicers are imprecise thinkers.

Comment #28: paul  on  05/05  at  01:10 PM

“My question is how.  How did anti-choicers manage to get an entire party’s leadership to adopt their worldview…? “

Turnout, turnout, turnout. 

Batshit crazy Evangelicals used not to vote in large numbers.  Church leaders actively discouraged participation in secular politics, as a distraction from a spiritual life dedicated to their idea of an afterlife.

But in the 70s, a new breed of movement conservatives used Roe v. Wade to mobilize this small, but very dedicated fringe.  They became political.  They voted reliably and in significant numbers in election after election.  And so political operatives started crafting strategies around them, and elected officials started catering to them.

There’s a revealing quote from Karl Rove to the President of the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004.  Rove, for all his faults, has a gay father and is personally in favor of gay rights.  Yet he said quite openly that he was using gay issues as a wedge in 2004 because he would lose 1,000,000 LGBT votes but gain 4,000,000 Evangelical votes.  George Bush was reelected with one of the smallest margins of victory in history.  He won by 3,000,000 votes.

Comment #29: BABH  on  05/05  at  01:18 PM

Karmakin @26: “Both parties (that is the Democrats and the relatively sane portions of the Republican party) are going after the same demographic. “Swing voters”.”

Actually, in most elections swing voter turnout is not nearly as important as base turnout.  And the Republican fundy base turns out reliably for candidates who cater to them.

Comment #30: BABH  on  05/05  at  01:23 PM

Paul, but you assume the mothers are expected to take care of the child.  Nonono, the child is supossed to be adopted out to a deserving (read: white, middle-class, straight, Christian) couple, so that s/he can have a better life than that dirty slut could ever give it.  The couple gets a child, the child gets a home—everybody (who matters) wins!

Comment #31: Jayn Newell  on  05/05  at  01:24 PM

Oh - the flipside of Evangelical political power is that they do not compromise: they will stay home in droves rather than hold their noses and pull the lever for a Republican candidate who does not share all their views on hot-button issues.  Their loyalty is to their idea of God, not to the Republican Party.

Comment #32: BABH  on  05/05  at  01:30 PM

I doubt the anti-choice agenda would have this much power if it didn’t dovetail nicely with the anti-worker agenda.  Making sure women can’t control when and how many children they have is part and parcel with keeping the population too sick, uneducated, over-worked, and underpaid to demand that government actually put some brakes on the abuses of big business.

Comment #33: carovee  on  05/05  at  01:44 PM

Paul:

If I am remembering Defense correctly, Thomson’s response to the argument that the “violinist” metaphor does not apply to a woman who had consensual sex because she chose to have sex with the knowledge that pregnancy is a possible outcome (which is how antis phrase it when they don’t want to come out and say that women forfeit their right to bodily autonomy by being skanky) is that if we allow that reasoning, it can easily be extended to rape victims as well.  After all, what women doesn’t know that rape is a possibility?  If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should have her tubes tied before she leaves the house, otherwise she is complicit in any pregnancy that is the result of a rape, and therefore an abortion would be unjust. 

It’s a great response, but like you said, deep down it’s all about using pregnancy and parenthood to punish women who enjoy their sexuality, and so none of this is even relevant.  And this is why they are impossible to reason with.  They’ll argue with you for hours about the moral worth of a fetus and how the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, just because they have to keep up the appearance (to us?  to themselves?) that it’s their true concern.  And nothing you say ever sticks because they don’t actually care in the least about boring philosophy student debates over rights, just about making the skanks pay.

Comment #34: mamram  on  05/05  at  01:49 PM

Because years and years of utter physical dependence on someone who wanted you never to have existed sounds like the kind of punishment someone really mean would wish on their worst enemy, not an “innocent” baby.

No no, Paul. No such thing as an “innocent” baby. Only an innocent FETUS. Because a baby, in most cases, has touched a vagina (on the way out, natch), and is therefore hideously sinful and subject to a life of misery.

Comment #35: Well, what?  on  05/05  at  01:52 PM

How have anti-choicers gained so much power over Republican politicians that said politicians will do pretty much whatever they ask?

Actually I think this might be better stated the other way around. The RepubliThugs have the freedom to do anything they want as long as they toe the line on abortion, which, through years of preaching and propaganda, has become the overriding issue in the lives of a significant segment of the voting population.

Comment #36: tesseral  on  05/05  at  01:59 PM

Correction:The issue is not abortion but women’s reproductive rights in general.

Comment #37: tesseral  on  05/05  at  02:01 PM

@33: “I doubt the anti-choice agenda would have this much power if it didn’t dovetail nicely with the anti-worker agenda.”

Absolutely.  That’s been the Republican coalition since Reagan.

Comment #38: BABH  on  05/05  at  02:12 PM

@mamram #34 - Uh, no.  A woman who gets her tubes tied also forfeits her right to live because she has demonstrated a willful refusal to submit to the patriarchal imperative to produce serfs and cannon fodder. 

It should be noted that even though wingnuts are hellbent on punishing poor mothers via depriving them and their children of public assistance they have no truck with non-parents either.  Here in AZ they just cut tens of thousands of poor childless adults off Medicaid.

Comment #39: DonnaDiva  on  05/05  at  03:12 PM

This shit isn’t new. I first became aware of it when I was in middle school. A girl in my class had severe endometriosis. Her doctors put her on oral birth control (you know, the STANDARD TREATMENT for endometriosis). Someone found out, and immediately there was this nasty rumor that she was a “slut.” There was chatter about how her parents must be so upset (about how their kid was sick but was getting treatment?) or bad in some way. There was actually (!) chatter of organizing a boycott against her father’s business.

I also heard of a man being told to divorce his wife because she’d had a hysterectomy (treatment for cervical cancer) - after all, she wasn’t really a woman any more.

The vehement anti-choicers really don’t think women are people. They really don’t. A woman’s only value is her ability to bear <strike>children</strike> sons for her husband.

Comment #40: Esteleth  on  05/05  at  03:25 PM

That’s if the child is white, Jayn.  If it is a babe of color, then of course the child may still be adopted out to a deserving white family, to be forever greatful for the opportunities allowed by the white family, including the cast off clothes.  In return, the white family will be sure to a) raise said child to despise its heritage, or, b) stifle, by force if necessary, any “genetically originating bad behavior.”

Other possibilities include cutting healthcare and nutrition funding so more of THOSE babies will die, or the return of the orphanage/workhouse for children.  Just watch for the first charter boarding school.

Comment #41: phylosopher  on  05/05  at  04:08 PM

Hey, can y’all post links to negative Mike Pence stuff.  Thanks.

Comment #42: phylosopher  on  05/05  at  04:13 PM

@#41:  There was a Charter boarding school in that awful Waiting for Superman movie.  It’s already started.

Comment #43: kajey  on  05/05  at  04:27 PM

@42: I’d like to think that Pence is beatable, but I doubt it.  Who do we have on our bench?

Comment #44: BABH  on  05/05  at  04:40 PM

Nevermind, I found this: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indiana_gubernatorial_election,_2012

Comment #45: BABH  on  05/05  at  05:11 PM

If I am remembering Defense correctly, Thomson’s response to the argument that the “violinist” metaphor does not apply to a woman who had consensual sex because she chose to have sex with the knowledge that pregnancy is a possible outcome (which is how antis phrase it when they don’t want to come out and say that women forfeit their right to bodily autonomy by being skanky) is that if we allow that reasoning, it can easily be extended to rape victims as well.  After all, what women doesn’t know that rape is a possibility?  If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should have her tubes tied before she leaves the house, otherwise she is complicit in any pregnancy that is the result of a rape, and therefore an abortion would be unjust.
Comment #34: mamram on 05/05 at 12:49 PM

I’m not sure that you can consider the two kinds of risk to be the same.  One is primary—an action you take has a specific risk.  The other is secondary—an action you take has a risk, and that risk has a risk.

Add in typical patriarchical definitions of rape to exclude most rapes, and the person you’re arguing with will claim they are too far apart on the continuum of risk to be comparable in kind.

I think the whole essay boils down to being reasonable, which just isn’t going to work with unreasonable people.

Also, Turtleshack!

Comment #46: oldfeminist  on  05/05  at  06:25 PM

I think that conservatives are generally just better at political action than us for two reason. 1) Liberals love nuance. Once conservative have declared that BC and healthcare and everything else are, in fact, abortion, it takes a nuanced argument to convince dumbass swing voters that those things are not abortion. 2) Liberals love to eat their own.  Conservatives are heirarchal and whatever Republicans propose they can count on their base to to the line; therefore they can afford to make politically risky moves (I actually think most Republicans are true believers and the secular moneyCons sort of invaded teh Democratic party). Democrats cannot count on this support because liberals instinct is to find ways to improve legislation and pick it apart for errors. We also tend to want to through people out of liberalism when they have political faults (think of all the people that want to call Dan Savage a conservative or the huge fights we get into over language nuance) I think these tendencies are exaserbated by the fact taht the two political parties have become the Republicans and the not-Republicans, the latter all being not-Republicans for a wide variety of reasons. These different not-Republican groups often don’t get along.

Comment #47: alysia  on  05/05  at  09:07 PM

I think there are two things coming together.

1) Epistemic closure due to LSFD.  Simply put, people who watch Fox News go slowly crazy, and one manifestation of this is a fear-coma that’s constantly reinforced.

2) The election of Barack Obama has led to a doubling down on *-isms.  Racism was the obvious first aspect, but white power racism and Patriarchy are so close together as concepts that people are drifting into it.

The only cure for LSFD I’ve found is when people stop watching it, for some reason, and they realize that it makes them happier.  Usually, they end up kind of disaffected in general.  Fox News is very, very bad for people.

Comment #48: Punditus Maximus  on  05/05  at  09:23 PM

I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason they’re going so berserk on this particular issue is because they’re actually losing ground on so many of the other culture war issues that have been consistent winners for them for so long.  I mean, a n*gger’s in the White House and gay marriage is becoming the law of the land in state after state.  Is it possible they see this as a last stand? 

If that’s what’s happening, it wouldn’t be the first time women’s rights have suffered while other, previously-disenfranchised groups have advanced.  Just google the words “The Negro’s Hour”.  But that very example gives me a little bit of hope.

Comment #49: Seraph  on  05/05  at  10:10 PM

That is a really good point, Seraph. This is one of the few culture war issues where we have been backsliding for decades

Comment #50: alysia  on  05/05  at  10:55 PM

But in the 70s, a new breed of movement conservatives used Roe v. Wade to mobilize this small, but very dedicated fringe.  They became political.  They voted reliably and in significant numbers in election after election.  And so political operatives started crafting strategies around them, and elected officials started catering to them.

There’s a revealing quote from Karl Rove to the President of the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004.  Rove, for all his faults, has a gay father and is personally in favor of gay rights.  Yet he said quite openly that he was using gay issues as a wedge in 2004 because he would lose 1,000,000 LGBT votes but gain 4,000,000 Evangelical votes.  George Bush was reelected with one of the smallest margins of victory in history.  He won by 3,000,000 votes.

This feeds on itself. A canny politician in this situation knows they have to play to the base, whatever their personal views. Moderate voters who identify themselves as Republicans (many traditionally, as political affiliation is often inherited) see the party leaders doing this and therefore come to the conclusion that those positions are what it means to be a Republican politician (even if they, themselves, don’t espouse all those views either). The politicians who best represent those views therefore get even more votes, and the vicious cycle continues, until you get a majority of voters who don’t personally agree with Position X voting for politicians who may not themselves agree with Position X.

Comment #51: KeithM  on  05/05  at  11:53 PM

Republicans, always eager to make rape victims suffer more:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/texas-cheerleader-rape .

Comment #52: chiefscribe  on  05/06  at  02:12 PM

all i know is - i am BEYOND relieved that, after a 16-year search, i FINALLY found someone to steralize me [Essure, not a tubal - i’m SICK of surgeries] and that it’s happening THIS MONTH.

cuz if it had to wait until NEXT month - i might not have Medicaid anymore, the way these, these - i can’t even come up with an epithet that’s bad enough! - keep trying to fuck over all non-rich people!

i worked for the Social Security i’m getting [soon, i hope - 2 months or less, i hope…] i worked my ASS off, since i was 15, sometimes working 4 jobs and paying taxes on ALL of them… and now they want to take it away? they say it’s an “entitlement” that “people like me” [poor? disabled? female? Cherokee? geek?] “don’t deserve”

fuck THAT - i paid and i paid and i PAID, just in case this happened. that’s not an entitlement - that’s something i worked for and EARNED.

same with Medicaid - i paid my taxes for that.

 

[i’m really, really, really paranoid anymore - i feel like they’re out to get ME, personally. not JUST me, obviously, but specifically me and people like me, like they have a list of people “they” are trying to “get” and i’m that list.
and my question is - *IS* it paranoia when it’s obvious they ARE out to get me? maybe not PERSONALLY as it feels, but… i’m a poor, disabled, non-white-but-able-to-pass-as-white [and i never know which is the worse sin - not being white, or LOOKING white so people assume i am…], non-Christian WOMAN who is “over-educated” by their standards, has had an abortion, or at least a D&C but WOULD have had an abortion, who is divorced, whose had sex with LOTS of guys, sex just because *I* wanted to have sex, who is divorced and is now “living in sin” with her boyfriend of 7 years who happens to be a black man.
on the plus side, i’d probably die of old age before they figure out WHICH state to burn me at!]

Comment #53: denelian  on  05/08  at  03:51 AM

erm. i said “who is divorced” twice.

sorry about that - it’s probably because i thought i was divorced 13 years ago [i threw a party! i had papers!] but found out over the summer [he tracked me down on FaceBook - the only good thing i’ve ever HEARD about FB, actually] that we were NOT divorced.
because, after i sent back the signed paperwork in 98, his lawyer said “so, i need another $50” and my NOW-ex-husband decided the lawyer was trying to scam him.
so he didn’t pay the $50 - which were the FILING FEES that have to be PAID so that the divorce becomes LEGAL.

and he found out last May, when he went to get married :D


sorry - i shouldn’t find it so amusing, but it IS! even more so, because he IMMEDIATELY asked if i’d help pay for it, and when i told him no, sorry, just had 6 surgeries waiting for SSI/SSDI, his response was “oh, so there really *IS* something wrong with you. i always thought you were a hypochondriac who made up the pain”


so - sadly, i can’t help but be gleeful that he was horribly embarrassed. i feel bad for HER [and their kids! he has kids! who the hell thought letting HIM have kids was a good idea?]

anyway, that’s the way-too-long-explanation-as-to-why-i-mentioned-being-divorced-twice.

with too many hyphens smile

Comment #54: denelian  on  05/08  at  03:57 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.