Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This year's political field includes no fewer than five Republican Senate candidates who are so opposed to abortion that they would force women to bear their rapists' babies. Among those who would grant no exceptions even in the case of rape or incest, you'll find two Tea Party-favored women -- Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.
Does the Republican Party really think that women voters will favor women candidates, even those candidates oppose women's rights? Melissa Harris-Lacewell notes that women remain underrepresented in politics, and yet:
[O]n the one hand, there's this little tiny bit of me that wants to cheer for the fact that you have women candidates willing to be sort of courageous enough to put themselves forward in this very tough political situation.
On the other hand, let`s be completely clear about the facts here. There is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal. These extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war
on American girls and women. And the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is really neither surprising nor unprecedented.
Your turn's in the comments.
Leave a Comment:
I don't vote for a womb, I vote for rights, freedom, logic, critical thinking skills, reason, and the beleive that ALL ARE EQUAL.
this is what most annoys me about the friends i have who support tea party and who "loved " Sarah Palin "because she has balls" -- plelase voters look beyond sex, beyond the gimmics beyond the money being thrown at this idiotic movement and vote with your mind and your heart. i don't really want to have to move out of my own country at my age -- and if these idiots have their way i couldn't any way 'cause NO OTHER COUNTRY would have us anyway.
i vote for intelligence, common sense, the ability to discern right from wrong and don't give a diddly damn about religion, bombastic idealism or other such malarkey.
I find this argument so condescending, demeaning and frustrating!! Not to mention- that whole John McCain thing where he picked Sarah Palin thinking he'd win women voters- that worked, huh??
Thanks for listening!
In the end it didn't work but I made the mistake of voting for McCain/Palin because I wanted to see a woman win for a change. Needless to say I am so very thankful my vote was wasted. I really wanted Hillary to win. I have seen enough of the Republican actions to forever vote against Republicans now. I find it hard to believe the Republicans care about anything but winning control.
Would you vote for a candidate who opposes your rights, just because she shares your gender?
Absolutely, unequivocally, no. Not the longest day I live!
These TeaParty folks who have hijacked the GOP are the same people who have been trying for hundreds of years to force everyone to think the same way -- their way. They have more in common with the Taliban and with the (dare I even breathe the thought or print it?) the National Socialists or with the screwballs in the French government who are harrassing the Roma than they do with modern day Americans. Furthermore, they have absolutely no shame about it and are irony-proof so they're immune to any fact checking and calling out that is done by rational people. THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT THEM IS AT THE BALLOT BOX. HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THE BLUE DOG INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS IF YOU HAVE TO. But, we can't can't can't let these wingnutties win in November!
What a huge load of stinking crap.
I vote for people who I think are smart and capable of doing job. Sharing the same beliefs as me helps but I never vote for woman just because she's a woman. That's what I consider to be irresponsible voting.
It' odd (well, not really) how Republicans hate government regulations (particularly when t affects the pocketbooks of big business, claim to want a smaller government, hate government's "interference" with personal liberty, yet they are all for deciding what reproductive rights a woman may and may not have.
That's what grinds my nerves about the GOP. They constantly whine about "Big Brother," but they want to control medical care for women, prevent same sex marriage and adoptions, harass minorities over their citizenship. They're so damn two faced it's disgusting!
Since I was a teenager, 50 years ago!, I have wondered what sense did it make that the people who were most concerned about the the life and birth of un wanted babies, some products of rape and/or incest, had little or no concern about the death of young men (mostly lower class boys), and little or no concern about the lives of people living on or near battle fields.
The people who are most judgemental and condeming of criminals, using capitol punishment and harsh jail sentences, are the same people who are not interested in supporting the education of women (and their children), providing good quality health care that includes birth control and abortion, and meaningful treatment for drug addition and alcoholism.
Greedy people looking for money and power want gambling casinos, and care nothing about people, mostly women and children, who suffer the most from the results of gambling and related addictions. Very nerve grinding.
Regarding the abortion argument:
I think their argument is more honest than those who give an exception for rape & incest. I mean, you either think it's murder or it's not. If you genuinely think it's murder, then how the child came to be is irrelevant and it shouldn't be punished for the misdeads of the father.
That said, it's not murder. So it should be (as it is) legal and accessible (which it isn't for many people).
Regarding voting for women: there are a lot of conservative women out there. I think the GOP bringing more female candidates on board is going to work very well for them. Racism and sexism may still be rampant in the Republican party but you have to remember that fearmongering is working very well right now, and will probably continue to do so.
Dems won before when they countered fear with hope. We need to post copies of Harvey Milk's biography to all democratic strategists right now.
If they are going with the stance of no abortion no execpetions then they MUST allow for counseling during and after the precnancy that was caused by rape, incest, etc. AND they pay all medical expenses and adoption costs to have the baby adopted by a loving family/person/couple
Agreed. What's more, if you think it's murder then you must oppose medicinal birth control drugs because they are, in essence, "chemical abortions." Condoms, diaphragms, and coitus interruptus. Those are your non-murderous options.
IMO, all of this present day controversy stems from a strategic decision made by pro-choice groups decades ago: to abandon defense of reproductive rights at the local level, in favor of defense at the national level and esp., in the courts. The anti-rights groups worked from the bottom up, systematically over decades turned state and local gov'ts against reproductive rights and now have the upper hand in the battle. And they have the upper hand because the people who are now engaged at the national level started at the local/state level. We have had bad generals in this war and guess what: they're still giving the orders.
mp
This is a topic I consider to be one of the most difficult problems known to politics. (And me being a man doesn't exactly help much, just like me being European doesn't help much with understanding exactly how big of an issue this is in American politics.) I get that it's of course the woman who gives birth. I absolutely get that it's extremely horrifying to carry around a constant reminder of one's own rape, a nine-month-nightmare while being awake.
But.
This is not like the women's right to vote, the women's right to equal pay or the women's right to serve in the armed forces. We are talking about whether or not to give birth to a human being. There are two people involved: The terrified mother and the child. And the question is: Does the nightmare outweigh the unborn's life? I agree with CanuckJacq: This is a point where Republicans are actually intellectually honest for a change. If you believe life begins at conception, you can't make exceptions, at least not without debating whether or not there are grounds to what amounts to a death penalty for the unborn, who obviously didn't participate in the crime.
I myself have not yet found an answer to the problem. Being catholic and conservative (by European standards, meaning something like a moderate Democrat by US standards), I'm leaning towards seeing abortion more as a life issue than a women's issue, and I think seeing abortion restrictions only as a means to patronize women leaves out a big chunk of the question. Saying "abortion" and spending the rest of the time talking about the woman seems to me like saying "atomic energy" and then talking about CO2-emissions without mentioning the waste (uhm, this is a spectacularly bad analogy, but I hope you get what I mean). On the other hand, I see the problems women are in and the need to offer them a solution.
I'd be very grateful if the life-part of the issue could be addressed in the show by Rachel herself or the reliably awesome Melissa Harris-Lacewell, as I'm looking forward to maybe find an answer to the question one day, and this could certainly help me with that. Thanks. :)
While the pro-choice community tends to shy away from recognizing the life of the zygote/fetus because we fear that by doing so we will inevitably cede ground on women's rights, I don't believe that individuals who are pro-choice believe fetal life is value-less. We just believe that the value that is assigned to fetal life, particularly at different stages during pregnancy, is incredibly subjective and deeply personal. We don't agree on when it becomes a person - and there are many positions on the spectrum.
That is why the pro-choice community believes that personhood should begin at birth, because that is the point at which everyone can agree something has 'personhood.' I wouldn't care to my position on the value of fetal life throughout pregnancy the definition that everyone must adhere to, and I'd like for anyone else's not to be the definition I must adhere to.
That said, the reason we talk about women's rights is because there is NO other stiuation sthat forces another human being to 'donate' their body to another. It is uniquely a position that women are in.
There are two issues here, both stem from at what time is an embryo considered a human being. Being, from the time of conception or the time of birth.
Science, proponents of Pro-Choice (and EVERYONE) base this from the moment of birth. Think about it, we're not counted as being 9 month old the day we are born and our BIRTHDAY is the measure we ALL count our age by.
This being said, it must also be taken into account that women are born with millions of eggs, and as we age the number declines. When she cycles about 20 eggs start the process of development with only 1-2 eggs reaching maturity for fertilization. When a woman has her menses this means that the egg wasn't fertilized.
Add to this, Miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) occurs with about 10-20% of known pregnancies. These miscarriages are due to chromosomal and structural abnormalities. Though it should be taken into account that this number does not include fertilized eggs that are released before pregnancy is known.
The proponents of Pro-Live Birth base this time as the moment of conception, or if we take it from the religious slant, BEFORE conception (i.e. God's plan for our spirit).
Would this mean that they would bring criminal murder charges for every egg lost by a woman in her lifetime? Would they bring 4,080+ counts of murder against me because I chose to be responsible and not have children before I was ready and able to provide them a better life?
Additionally, Pro-Live Birth pundits still don't talk about the quality of that baby's life AFTER birth. In the cases of inscest and rape it is STILL hard for the victem to find justice. In some cases there is NO action taken and these young ladies are beaten for becoming pregnant, even in cases where they have NO ACCESS to prevention.
What of the child in these cases? Does the rapist tell lies and say she did it with a teen boyfriend? Do the Pro-Live Birth pundits support the government paying the legal costs of bringing criminal charges against the rapist, counseling costs for the mother and adoption for the child? Do they support providing food, clothing, shelter and health care for these children. Do they set aside funding for these children to go to foundational school and college. The resounding answer at this time seems to be NO!
C N Ookami your discussion was exceptional -- thank you for saying it clearly and concisely and with heart AND intellect. Oh that more would consider reason.
Nope! Never have, never will.
I vote issues, not gender.
I'd be interested in hearing what these conservative women have to say about Viagra, etc. Actually, I'd be more interested in what a like minded man would say about Viagra. Then lets ask the question on how men would vote...
Melissa Harris-Lacewell was astonishingly eloquent on last night's program. She's one of the few "pundits" (including Rachel) to whose remarks I always pay very close attention. Wonderful insight!
I loved Melissa's suggestion they devote the entire show to this topic. She was so amazing I wish she could talk more.
I agree, more Melissa Harris-Lacewell, please.
I like to believe that, while I , too, cheer on women as candidates, I never choose a candidate because of their gender/ race/ sexual orientation/religion, etc.
I liken it to women thinking female OB/GYNs will be more understanding. My experience has been quite the opposite. I think, perhaps, that they have had to be more Boy-like than the Boys in the Boys Club called medicine.
I hope that i do not vote like my Mother. It's easy for her; whoever is for "the babies" gets her vote, no thinking needed.
Yes, a women's right to choose is CRAZY Important! I have six sisters and five daughters,but so are many other issues.
BTW Rachel: you rock!!
Voting for a self identifying gender (or any other identifier) would be like Michael Steele voting for Barack Obama ...
Oops! Bad example.
I mean, it is hard to figure out where our country is going, these days. But can we all agree that when people have the personal ethic (so eloquently expressed in song) as "First I Look At The Purse".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ioa_7axug
When a candidate has this ethic they should *NOT* be in public life.
No way. Just as I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman, and voted for Obama, not because he was black or a male, but because I thought he best represented my values and because I thought he could win the general. I vote with my conscience, not my vagina.
Just to quiet the possible "you didn't play the entire video!" for Sarah Palin's debate at 8 minutes, 20 seconds:
(From - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/195195-1)
00:12:3831 sec.
THANK YOU. I WILL DIRECT THIS TO MS. PALIN. SUPPOSE SENATOR JOHN DOE PUTS FORTH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD OUTLAW ABORTION EVEN IN CASES OF...
00:12:5420 sec.
YOU'RE ASKING ME IF IN FRONT OF ME WERE LEGISLATION THAT I WOULD BE ASKED TO SIGN? NO, IF HE WAS GOING TO
00:12:5924 sec.
NO, IF HE WAS GOING TO PUT FORTH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND HE JUST WANTED YOUR SUPPORT, THE PARTY, YOU KNOW, AS A PARTY MEMBER, AS THE LEADER OF THE...
00:13:0826 sec.
I WOULD. I WOULD. YOU KNOW, IT'S NO SECRET THAT I'M PRO-LIFEB(FUn DON'T HIDE THAT AND NOR AM I ASHAPED OF THAT AND I AM PRO- LIFE. YES, A PROPOSAL LIKE...
(That's from the transcript - can't watch the video for some reason)
Blast. The transcript wasn't full... But it's there at that site!
God, I love Melissa Harris-Lacewell. She's absolutely amazing.
I would never vote for Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle or Christine O'Donnell because they are women. I would vote against them because I am a woman, and I feel their beliefs would do major harm to women everywhere. To assume women vote for women blindly is a sexist narrow minded view. I vote for the candidate I feel can best relate to my views. Women (and men) like them are so out of touch and have such crazy views, that the thought of them obtaining any kind of power is just plain frightening.
NO WAY NO HOW! Gender makes NO difference. Sure I like seeing women succeed but not at the cost of every other woman in the country. Come on Left Wingers GET OUT AND VOTE this November!
Oh hell no! I don't vote for a uterus, any more than I vote for the colour of someone's hair! I vote for what's between the ears, what they stand for. As for these two twits - I cannot fathom what they are thinkin.... oh wait.. thinking - that's dangerous, isn't it? Not trooping along and doing what we are told by the big strong man or a book written a couple thousand years ago - that's dangerous, right? After all, that's what the Taliban say - and Rush - and Sarah.
A vote for either of these women, and that include Sarah Palin, is like taking four giant steps backwards. We have fought long and hard for our rights, and I believe that a woman has a right to choose....didn't Sarah have a choice? Yes she did!!!!
As a woman, I vote for candidates who share some of the same values I have. Sharon Angle and Christine O'donnell do not share my values. In 2008, I really wanted to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries, because she is a woman, but in the end I could not bring myself to do it. I did not feel she was the best candidate, even though I respect her a lot. So, no, I personally will not vote for someone because of gender. (or race or sexual orientation, or any other petty reason)
If the Republicans really want to appeal to women voters, they need to dump Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell and all others like them. They send us all back into the dark ages and are not representative of ANY of the women I know.
I vote for people who share my values. These women do not share my values. End of subject.
It was Roe v. Wade. It was decided. Now, move on. This shouldn't keep wasting our time and the fact that these GOP/Tea Bagging women keep pursuing it is a waste of time specifically pursued by the Kochs in order to push the agenda THEY want. Keep the ditzy women distracted with a reproductive rights hen party and we (the Kochs) can get what we (the Kochs) want, which is wealth flowing up to us (the Kochs).
I'm a woman and I am offended that we keep having this discussion. It's a non-troversy. Roe v. Wade was decided, now can we get back to the Gulf problem, Iraq, Afghanistan, unemployment and the plethora of other SERIOUS issues happening!
It always makes me chuckle when conservatives bandy about terms -- liberal, progressive, socialist -- meant as slurs, but which I consider simply descriptive, and which I wear proudly. Another of those terms which I welcome, and which applies deeply to reproductive rights, is moral relativist. Yes. I am one. I may have my opinions on abortion, but I make no claims that mine is the only or "correct" one. That is the choice in the choice movement. If only they would realize it applies to their choice as well.
By the way, I don't think I've ever used the word "bandy" before outside of my head.
I vote for the candidates who will ensure my rights and the rights of my daughters in the future, regardless of gender or race. I do consider religious affiliations because I would like to keep government a secular entity. This is becoming more and more difficult.
no.
in another little twist, ms. angle comes from the state that ranks first in the country for violence against women. (from salon.com)
http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-men-murder-women-study,0,4250991.story
Just wondering how the Party of Smaller Government plans to fit this into their overall agenda. For people who think the government is too "in your face", they sure don't mind having them in other body parts.
Actually we do. It never should have been a legal issue to begin with.
I would only vote for a candidate, male or female, if their ideals were in-line with my own. However, I would applaud any female who has the courage to enter into this difficult arena because it helps pave the way for all women (whether we agree or disagree with them).