Last week I argued that Missouri Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin’s anti rape, anti abortion stance is shared across the GOP. Akin, who opposes abortion in all cases, including rape, famously said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Despite being a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Akin uses non-scientific reasoning to perpetrate one of the most offensive and ignorant campaign season’s comments to date. When news of Akin’s spurious comments about a woman’s bodily response to rape swirled around in the blogosphere and across news desks, pundits connected the Missouri Republican senate candidate to vice president hopeful, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Both Akin and Ryan (along with other GOP colleagues) share the desire for an absolute abortion ban. There ensued a flurry of corrections and clarifications, particularly as Ryan attempted to distance himself from House colleague Akin saying on Pittsburgh’s KDKA, “I believe rape is rape, there’s no splitting hairs.” Then there were others who distanced themselves from Akin. Romney called on Akin to step out of the race. John Cornyn, the Texas Senator who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee asked Akin to step out of the race. Other big-name Republicans asking Akin to quit were his would-be colleagues, including Missouri’s junior senator Roy Blunt, who issued a joint statement together with former Missouri U.S. senators John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, John Danforth, and Jim Talent. In advance of the Republican National Convention Tampa, the Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, instructed Akin to not attend. But no one spoke about the reality of the GOP’s platform on abortion. They diverted the media’s attention, focusing on rape, legitimate rape, forcible rape and showing signs of contrition for their blatant misogynistic comments. Among crisis communications professionals, the mantra for repairing a crisis is formulaic: 1) demonstrate you are appalled at the offense, 2) offer your apologies, and 3) offer an easily remembered meme. For Ryan, it was the simple ‘rape is rape’ meme to get the focus off of Akin and off him (momentarily).
For the GOP, Akin created a crisis for the Republican convention’s rollout of their freshly polished version of their 1976 platform. Back then they wrote “We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”
I need to stop here to give a nod to GOP’s obfuscation in the phrase “the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children” and to ask “Can you be anymore disingenuous?” Then in 1980, the GOP’s platform stated that they affirm “support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.” When did the original constitution protect the unborn? It seems to me the 14th amendment quite plainly states that born persons are protected, not unborn. Fast forward to 2000 when 30-something Paul Ryan argued vociferously against any exceptions for abortion. In fact, in this video, Ryan states “Let me just say this to all of my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue, on the motion to recommit, the health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through it,” Ryan said. “The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless.” In other words, let the women die.
Forward to September 2011, when the five presidential candidates at the Palmetto Freedom Forum were asked whether they would support legislation under Section Five of the 14th Amendment, that would restore legal protection for unborn children. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich said they would support such legislation. Mitt Romney said that he feared such legislation would provoke a constitutional crisis. Instead, he would focus on appointing judges who would return abortion regulation to the states. Then there is the fact that despite a sour economy, Ryan co-sponsored eight bills to that infringe on women’s rights (H.R. 212, 217, 358, 361, 1179, 2299 , 3803 and 3805). One has to wonder how Ryan can say with a straight face that he’s working hard for middle class America. It seems to me he’s working hard for the Catholic Church and for more accolades bestowed on him by the National Right to Life.
Now, it’s Convention week for the Republicans. And despite their denials of their War on Women, there’s ample evidence from all their legislative attacks on women’s reproductive and parenting rights. Readied as a draft for the convention, the draft of the GOP’s 2012 platform statement further demonstrates their draconian battle against women. It reads, in part, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” And “We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.”
So, let’s ponder the implications for each line of the above text, keeping in mind that it’s not the entire text and keeping in mind that the above text was approved by the Convention. The implications bear careful consideration.
#1- Amending the 14th Amendment to give legal status to the unborn would unquestionably violate the rights of women.
#2- Protecting girls with parental notification from exploitation and statutory rape overlooks the grim reality that parents are often the perpetrators of sexual crimes against young girls including trafficking. And when young girls are pregnant, asking parent’s permission or notifying the parents often leads to disastrous results for the young girls including abuse and abandonment.
#3 – Assist women with unplanned pregnancies is a noble idea and is in effect for many state sponsored and faith-based charities, including Mormon and Catholic faiths. But coming from the ‘let’s reduce the government’ Republicans, it seems disingenuous to add more governmental interventions that are focused on abortion. In fact, the Republican party has been responsible for targeted regulations against abortion providers, all additional government interventions.
#4 – Abortion as an assault on human life is a value judgment that says the sanctity of innocent human life, the zygote/embryo/fetus, trumps the sanctity of woman’s human life. Abortion has saved the lives of millions of born citizens called women. Why don’t they count? When Republicans wave the flag and talk about the American dream, shouldn’t that include women’s American dreams to control their own lives, including their reproduction?
#5 – Women deserve better than abortion is, again, a value judgment coming from an informed mindset steeped in patriarchy and misogyny. Further, the judgment flies in the face of evidence-based research from respected scholars, practitioners and from women’s own stories. Can it be that the RNC wants to deny women’s realities, deny science and, more importantly, deny their war on women? The fact that a recent CNN poll found that the majority (83-88%) of Americans approve of the abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the physical health (screw her mental health) of the mother. Yet, folks like Akin and Ryan want no exceptions. Period. It’s like Ryan said when talking about rape, “ The method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” So, now rape is a method of conception?
#6 – Enable and empower women to choose life makes me recoil in Handmaiden’s Tale-type horror. How does one enable and empower a women to choose life if it isn’t through coercion? Women who do not want to be pregnant, will find a way to end their pregnancy, legal or illegal. How can men like Romney and Ryan be so obstinate, so willfully driven to impose their religious leanings on women? What happened to the separation of church and state? Hell, what happened to women’s rights?
So, this is what the Republicans value in their recent Convention platform that they approved. Ideologues are running the show. Paul Ryan wants no exceptions for abortion. Romney has said he would not oppose abortion in instances of rape. His position, however, puts him at odds with the official GOP party platform and with his little buddy, Paul Ryan. The official GOP platform wants to give legal rights to products of conception and to define ‘person’ as beginning at fertilization with an amendment to the 14th Amendment. Simply they want to make a cluster of cells a legal person while simultaneously annihilating a woman’s legal right to an abortion. Let’s not forget that birth control is also on the firing line amongst the current incarnation of the Republican party.
Writing about the Republican Party, Root columnist, Keli Goff, wrote that they seem “determined to set the health of American women back by more than a century, with targeting abortion no longer enough. Birth control rights are increasingly in the line of fire.” Speaking about the GOP candidates, she compared their treatment of the health, safety and rights of American women to Shari law and wrote , “I’m at a loss to see any real difference between the manner in which Sharia law penalizes women who are raped and the efforts of Perry and his Personhood cohorts to penalize American rape survivors with a nonconsensual pregnancy.” Other pundits argue that the extreme ideologues in the GOP want an American Christian Taliban.
All I can say to voters, think very carefully about your vote in November.
August 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm
The GOP are real ill. I have been reading about what is going on down there in Tampa – It is just horrible. They should be ashamed!
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Holy smokes! I wish to hell I’ve hadn’t had seven martinis. Maybe then I’d be able to digest this. I’ll try later.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 4:49 am
Still can’t digest this so I’ll cough up parts: “#1- Amending the 14th Amendment to give legal status to the unborn would unquestionably violate the rights of women.”
Duh! My right to live restricts your right to wield a knife.
I’ll bet the remaining five statements are as easy to see through.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 4:53 am
No. 2 certainly is: you weaken the family and then you use that weakness to argue that Big Brother should replace it. The only thing Orwell got wrong was the century.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 5:26 am
Do you realize, Kate, that in #3 you’re arguing that if the government is going to help babies, it must also help those who kill them?
I’ll expose the remaining three after I save one or two lives at Planned Parenthood.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 5:34 am
If you’ve seen any coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech in Tampa, you know that the consensus among journalists and independent observers is that it was … factually challenged.
He lied about Medicare. He lied about the Recovery Act. He lied about the deficit and debt. He even dishonestly attacked Barack Obama for the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin — a plant that closed in December 2008 under George W. Bush. He also failed to offer one constructive idea about what he would do to move the country forward. One has to wonder where the GOP is headed….it certainly isn’t toward a democracy.
Paul, the Wonder Boy, knows how to manipulate the rabid prolifers, the Tea Baggers and assorted wooden heads. God help us all if the GOP wins in November.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 5:46 am
Here’s a few other lies from Paul, the Wonder Boy.
“The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst.” That’s extraordinarily hard to argue, and Ryan’s office lobbied effectively for some stimulus grants that went to his district.
“$716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.” Not really true, either. The Medicare spending “cuts” are of the sort that Ryan defended when he was rising through the House—reductions in future reimbursement rates.
“A downgraded America.” S&P’s rationale for downgrading the United States from AAA to AA+ “assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place.” This was “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” Ryan’s promised to keep those tax cuts for now, then try and flatten the code into two low rates, and we don’t know what the S&P Tiki Gods think of that.
The “bipartisan debt commission” Ryan referred to was Simpson-Bowles. He served on it, and voted against the report, because it didn’t tackle Medicare costs—which sort of brings us back to the “$716 billion funneling” issue.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 8:29 am
I’m back! Saved three this morning! Anyway, #4.
You may not kill people to “help” other people! Why is that so hard for you killers’ helpers to understand?
No. 5 is scatter shot. “Evidence-based research from respected scholars” — good grief! Don’t you get tired?
I’ll look at #6 after I finish Gates of Hell.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 11:45 am
Six is just a rehash of the crap above it. Let’s move on.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Go ahead, you liitle turd. You, Dunklemeister, are given permission to move on, as in your little Reading smattering, you trifling insignificant little old bow-legged man.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 4:27 am
“Old”! I resent old. I’m hardly more than seventy! Or is that eighty.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 9:54 am
LIER LIER PANTS ON FIRE
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 9:56 am
Right on the money about the GOP and the harm they cause.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Dunkle believes it is OK to force a rape victim to relive the rape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 9 months. The mass of cells is not sentient and until about 6 months along, is not capable of survival outside the victim’s body. Therefore it is not a separate entity. Until then it is essentially a growing wart, and any person with a wart can choose to let it grow or to remove it. Yet Dunkle believes in punishing the rape victim. To date I have not read even one sentence by Dunkle suggesting he has any compassion for a rape victim.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
The only person non-sentient around here, Dave, is you. Wrong! There are a few others. Y’all are warts, too.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 6:38 pm
David,
Why would John have any compassion for a rape victim? He has no compassion for the women who were raped in his life, no compassion for his lesbian daughter, no compassion for his wife who is of another faith, no compassion for pre-teens raped by their fathers, no compassion, period.
He is a man who toys with women’s anatomy, a man who desperately seeks sexual familiarity but is rebuffed. He is a man who is pervertedly fascinated with women’s vaginas, ovaries and gestational processes.
Pity the poor bastard that he wasn’t born a woman.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 4:31 am
Parker? Are you new too? Sound like Kate to me.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 5:32 am
“Sound like Kate to me”? Reads like Greek to me.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 7:40 am
Kate, Kate Ranieri, bloggingfem, et al. She’s crazy same way you are.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 10:00 am
John, You are an obnoxious lying abnormal piece of humanity.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Kate again. Were you?
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 5:35 am
Dave,
And so, Dunkle has had the opportunity to respond to your point about his lack of compassion for rape victims and we’ve can read the results.
A big fat ZERO.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 7:56 am
I knew I could drag it outa you warts, that is, the question you say I don’t answer. So it’s, “Johnny Boy, how come you don’t have any compassion for rape victims.”
Here’s the answer: ” I do have compassion, I do! I have compassion to the point where I try to persuade them not to add to that horror by having someone murdered as a result.”
You guys hate it, don’t you, when I drag the questions out of you. You anticipate the fact that my answers will make you look stupid. But you’re not dumb. So you hide the questions, pile them up, fail to make them intelligible, and so on. And then you accuse me of not answering them. But every once in a while I trick you into talking literately, with the above results.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 11:59 am
So here we have the all-knowing John Dunkle telling everyone that he knows what everyone is feeling (You guys hate it), what everyone is doing (You anticipate) or (So you hide questions)and what everyone is meaning (you accuse me of not answering).
Makes me wonder why you bother hanging around.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 12:06 pm
I know a lot. I wouldn’t call me “all-knowing” though.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm
John’s “compassion” is to try to convince a rape victim to act in a particular way – a way he believes is best. I’d prefer the rape victim receive professional council (John, you do not qualify) and then make her own choice. (John, no response is needed; your position is clear.)
I note that Parker says there are rape victims in John’s life. Is that true, John? What was your relationship to them? Did they get pregnant? If so, what were professional councilors involved in helping recovery and what were the results?
Parker also mentions a lesbian daughter. Is this true? (I did not see any denial.). If so, do you treat her with the same respect you treat you other children? (sorry John, I know, I raised two separate issue. Try to deal with both.)
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm
John’s “compassion” is to try to convince a rape victim to act in a particular way – a way he believes is best. [You bet.]
I’d prefer the rape victim receive professional council (John, you do not qualify) and then make her own choice. (John, no response is needed; your position is clear.) [Kate, here my responses are always needed. your “professional counselor” is actually a killers’ helper.]
I note that Parker says there are rape victims in John’s life. Is that true, John? [probably]
What was your relationship to them? Did they get pregnant? If so, what were professional councilors involved in helping recovery and what were the results? [I don’t know the answer to any of these questions.]
Parker also mentions a lesbian daughter. Is this true? (I did not see any denial). [I don’t think so.]
If so, do you treat her with the same respect you treat you other children? (sorry John, I know, I raised two separate issue. Try to deal with both.) [sure, sure]
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Boy, I screwed that up — paragraph 2: [Dave, here my responses are always needed. Your “professional counselor” is actually a killers’ helper.]
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 3:07 pm
A rape victim who reports the crime to the police or at a hospital is very quickly medically treated and offered professional council, usually by trained compassionate professionals not associated with an abortion provider. At least that was the case when a college age relative of mine was raped some years ago. Whether that relative got pregnant or not, I do not know, but no child resulted. I do know she was in fear for her life – not something she would have wanted to relive 25/7/9 – and today is pro-choice.
You are truly without compassion.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Not too bad, Dave, except for this: “Whether that relative got pregnant or not, I do not know, but no child resulted.”
In other words, she might have had someone tortured to death. It’s like shooting through an outhouse before checking to see if someone is in there.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 5:41 pm
So now you’re comparing a woman to an outhouse? What a low life.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 6:16 pm
What if I said, like shooting through a thicket without checking whether someone was walking on the path beyond it. You’d still hate it, right, a?
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Or better yet, like torching a tent without looking to see if someone’s sleeping inside.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 11:59 am
Torching, shooting, torturing…are you sure you’re not a Drama Mama? You’re language reminds me of whiny women.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm
strange comment
LikeLike
September 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm
If I knew that worst case the only thing in the outhouse or in the tent or the only thing beyond the ticket would be a wart, I’d be OK with shooting the gun or torching the tent.
We all (including, I hope, John) know that a rapist inflicts both physical and emotional pain on the victim. We also know that forcing a rape victim to carry to term may very well inflict that same emotional pain time and time again. John believes that is OK. John is a rapists’s helper.
LikeLike
September 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm
You’re right here, Dave: “We also know that forcing a rape victim to carry to term may very well inflict that same emotional pain time and time again.”
However, the alternative for carrying someone to term is torturing her to death.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 7:54 am
Your hyperbolic phrase of ‘torturing’ is not only disingenuous, it’s an outright falsehood. One cannot torture if there is no awareness of torture, no awareness period.
Further, the sentiment you cling to so dearly speaks volumes about your character including your utter dismissal of the wishes of a pregnant rape vicitm.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
Yo, Parker, don’t you realize your aligning yourself with killers throughout history? Their victims never feel pain, they’re not like us, they’re better off dead, etc.
Tell me more about what you think young people are like, you know, those racing towards birth
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 9:56 am
Not true at all. I’m aligning myself with women who have birth certificates; you know, the ones who matter. It is of little consequence to align yourself with a fetus, as you do, because you are simply trespassing on someone else’s property in your pointless pursuit of fire flies.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 11:29 am
Yeah, that’s another one — I own him, I can kill him.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
And don’t forget it. If she is pregnant, she has the legal and moral right to extinguish the little goey one, male or female and to do so without apology to anyone.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm
At two or three months he’s hard to get at. Much easier to wait till that gooey one grows into a fourteen-year-old pimply one. Like you maybe, Park? Think we should make it legal for mom to kill you then too? (Much quicker and a lot less expensive.)
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 8:06 am
Or perhaps I’m wrong about John Dunkle. Perhaps he is goading everyone.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 8:28 am
sure, sure
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Park, you getting close to what A. Liggins said here about me three years ago, which I post annually for the new AI’s:
“I have to wonder why it is that so many people are responding to Mr. Dunkle’s posts. Whomever John Dunkle is, he or she obviously is enjoying the attention everyone is heaping upon his rhetoric. He needles people into becoming his pawns in a game of words that ends with you all you looking like mad, angry idiots.
Ignore the man. He’ll go away eventually. Let him have the last word, if it means so much to him. It is clear he is very much enjoying these interactions he precipitates by making rude comments on this site. And you all fall right into the trap, and let him needle you into his game. It’s silly, manipulative, and childish.
Ignore him. He’ll go away eventually.”
A got some things right but not about my going away. He’s also wrong when he implies I’m smarter than you. It’s just a heck of a lot easier to argue that you shouldn’t kill people than it is to argue that you may. (That’s why your champion, Pat Richards, is a genius.)
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm
I believe in the right of the unborn child and the right of women. But imagine the pain of a raped woman had to suffer in carrying the baby for nine months and then raising it. I think it would be a living hell for both the baby and the mother.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 4:11 am
That’s a possibility, gj, that is a possibility, but anything to escape the infinitely worse living hell that awaits after death.
LikeLike
July 31, 2013 at 11:09 am
Good post. I’m reviewing continuously this specific site that i’m impressed! Very useful info exclusively one more part 🙂 My spouse and i manage like info significantly. I had been looking for this kind of details for some time. Many thanks and also good luck.
LikeLike
July 31, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Good post. I’m looking at continuously that weblog and I am astounded! Very beneficial facts precisely the very last part 🙂 My spouse and i contend with these kinds of details a lot. I was in search of this kind of facts for a long time. Appreciate it in addition to all the best !.
LikeLike
August 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Thanks very much, John, for your kind words. Hope you will read more of our stuff and comment more!
LikeLike
January 5, 2014 at 11:26 am
[…] Reframing Women’s Rights: The GOPs ChristianTaliban (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike
September 24, 2014 at 7:25 am
Fantastic blog you have here but I was wanting
to know if you knew of any message boards that
cover the same topics talked about here? I’d really like
to be a part of online community where I can get suggestions from other knowledgeable individuals that share the same interest.
If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Many thanks!
LikeLike