Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Legislating Is For Stupids Previous entry: Qs of the day - Gustav and the GOP

How He Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Forced Pregnancy

John McCain, alleged head of the Republican Party, summarily failed to get the GOP to change their position on abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother - although it’s not like he did anything to try to get them to change it.  Such a maverick!

The Republican Party platform this year will reassert the party’s opposition to abortion. And again it will not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Senator John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.

[...]

Mr. McCain argued strongly in 2000 for the platform to include the abortion exceptions. He affirmed that position as recently as May, in an interview with Glamour magazine to appear in its October issue.

“My position has always been: exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother,” he said. Asked if he would encourage the party to include them in the platform, he said, “Yes,” adding: “And by the way, I think that’s the view of most people, that rape, incest, the life of the mother are issues that have to be considered.”

But Mr. McCain in fact did little to push for the exceptions, and told Glamour on July 30 that he had “not gotten into the platform discussions.”

Suppose that you’re a candidate running to lead the United States of America, and a central part of your appeal is that you fight your party when their positions are not in the best interests of your country.  Your party drafts their official platform for the next four years, and includes these three items:

  • When a woman is impregnated by sexual assault, she should be compelled by force of law to carry through any resultant pregnancy, no matter the psychological aftereffects of the violation or the impact of the involuntary pregnancy on her life.
  • When a woman is impregnated by a family member’s sexual assault, she should be compelled by force of law to carry through any resultant pregnancy, no matter the psychological aftereffects of the violation, the impact of the involuntary pregnancy on her life, or the sure-to-be-damaging effects of having a child fathered by a rapist to whom you are inextricably and irrevocably linked by blood - both on the mother and the child.
  • When a pregnancy threatens to kill a mother and leave a child motherless or even entirely parentless, the mother should be compelled by force of law to carry through the pregnancy, even if the pregnancy also threatens to kill the child.

It seems rather obvious that protecting the rights of women to have control over their own lives after a horrific act of violence has occurred (or just protecting the right of women to live through childbirth) would be a far more mavericky, independent and valuable thing to do than fighting a “bridge to nowhere” or railing against studies of bear DNA.  It is, however, much braver than McCain seems to have the stomach for recently, and requires taking on the retrograde ideas that percolate in the GOP hive mind about rape and pregnancy, which means that we can expect our faux maverick to take it on about the fifth of Never. 

 

------

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 Jesse Taylor on 10:20 AM • (8) Comments

The life of the mother business is so incredibly outrageous.  I find it hard to understand how anyone can support abortion being illegal in order to save the life of the mother.  It’s totally insane.

Comment #1: John  on  08/31  at  12:07 PM

Faux maverick is absolutely right.  What he is doing is pandering to women hoping that by saying see I can make exceptions without actually fighting for them he will earn our votes.  Just like choosing the colluder Palin, he hopes that will be blind to the fact that he does not really have our best interests at heart.  How generous of him to make exceptions.  Why does he even think that he has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

Comment #2: Renee  on  08/31  at  12:23 PM

It seems such an obvious question—if McCain is such a maverick, then why in the hell did he choose a running mate who thinks abortions should only be legal when the life of the mother is in imminent danger? I know we don’t expect candidates and their running mates to be in lockstep on everything, but if McCain is as moderate as he claims, then that’s a major difference.

Comment #3: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  08/31  at  12:36 PM

John, it’s simple.  The woman chose to have sex- either by verbal consent or by having it forced upon her because she deserved it.  It is God’s will if she gets pregnant from the sex.  Therefore, it is God’s will if her life/the baby’s life is in danger, and God’s will if she dies.  And who are we to defy God’s will?

It is never, however, God’s will for men to be unable to have erections.  That’s the devil’s doing and God made via*%a for it.

Comment #4: Babs  on  08/31  at  03:21 PM

I find it hard to understand how anyone can support abortion being illegal in order to save the life of the mother.

That’s because you’re one of those crazypants libruls who likes to pretend women are worthy human beings. Once a woman-thing has proven it can’t produce Adequate Babies, what’s the point of keeping it around? Do you keep broken refrigerators in your house out of nostalgia?

Comment #5: Well, what?  on  08/31  at  03:25 PM

Besides, the rest of the GOP base, the rich corporatists know this doesn’t apply to them anyway.  If their 16 yo daughter gets pregnant or SUV-driving mom finds out she has a downs pregnancy, they can fly to NY, NJ, CA or Canada or wherever abortion will be available.  Pretty common in the pre-Roe days.

Comment #6: CParis  on  08/31  at  06:00 PM

Okay, this might be OT, but I have always wondered with these “exceptions” rules:

How do they prove it’s rape?  Do you have to have a conviction?  Are these people aware of how long it takes to get a conviction?  What if the woman is terrified to bring charges?  What if she doesn’t WANT to bring charges?  What if she does bring charges, and she has to prove that she wasn’t wearing whatever it is that people think makes it okay to rape a woman? 

Same thing with the incest exception.

And what if you get a doctor to write a letter or whatever about how you have this condition and you will die, and s/he sends the letter to the appropriate legislator, and that letter ends up in a desk drawer? 

Or can you just walk into any clinic and say you were raped and get what you need?  Because I don’t know people, but this whole thing is just stupid.  Does nobody think of the logistics when they try to pretend to “care” about women?  And why do we need the government to “care” about us?  How about just letting us live our lives and do what is best for us?

Comment #7: speedbudget  on  09/01  at  09:57 AM

Well, let me play Devil’s advocate for a moment.

If you believe that a single cell is a person, and letting that person die rather than attach to a woman’s body is the equivalent of cold-blooded murder, then how could you believe in exceptions for rape or incest? We don’t allow murder in the case of someone having been brutally hurt, do we?

The only rational way to allow an exception for rape or incest is to accept that the fertilized egg isn’t a person, that it’s okay to let it die. Of course, if you do that, the entire opposition to early-term abortion falls apart under an overwhelming assault by reason and logic.

So, of course the Republican Party has to oppose exceptions for rape or incest.

I have to admit, I am surprised… I thought saving the life of the mother was always an allowable exception. I knew they’d gotten brutal and stupid on the pro-life side, but I didn’t know they were *that* brutal and stupid.

Comment #8: LongHairedWeirdo  on  09/01  at  01:39 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.