When crafting its national platform, Republican Party officials had a decision to make on abortion: would the GOP support exemptions for those impregnated by rape or incest? In keeping with the last several party platforms, Republicans decided against exemptions.
But wait, Sean Spicer, communications director for the Republican National Committee, says. Maybe there are exemptions, on a theoretical level, if you tilt your head and close one eye (via Pema Levy).
"The Republican Party is a pro- life party. Our platform is just a simple set of principles which say that the problem with the ad that you played is the Democrats are trying to take a simple set of principles, which is the Republican Party's pro-life. There is no additional language, so to talk about exceptions or whatever is not found in the platform."
Got that? According to the RNC's own communications director, the Republican platform is just a set of principles. These principles oppose women's reproductive rights, the argument goes, but it doesn't explicitly say there can't be exemptions, so who knows? Maybe there will be exemptions!
Except the RNC's communications director is reflecting on his party's platform without having read it. The document calls for a "Human Life Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution that would ban all abortions.
As a New York Times editorial noted yesterday, the proposed constitutional language "would erase any right women have to make decisions about their health and their bodies. There are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest, and such laws could threaten even birth control."
Spicer is trying to play a little game here -- Republicans aren't explicitly saying "no exemptions," so we're supposed to believe GOP officials will only take away the reproductive rights of most American women, not all. But this is a farce.
The platform calls for an anti-abortion constitutional amendment; Paul Ryan opposes any exceptions to a ban on all abortions; and Mitt Romney has not only expressed support for a "Personhood" measure, but has also said he'd be "delighted" to sign a bill that would no longer allow abortions "at all, period."
It's against this backdrop that the RNC's communications director wants to play a semantics game?
Please. I realize Todd Akin has thrown Republicans off-balance, but the party has to take a side. Either the government should force women to take their pregnancy to term if they are impregnated by a rapist or not. As of this week, the party has taken a side, and there's no point in Sean Spicer pretending otherwise.
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like the Romney Ryan economic plan - we'll tell you the details later, if you deserve to know.
Are we talking about the funding of abortions with taxpayer money or are we talking about the legality of abortion? Because the law we were talking about that Ryan helped craft and support was a law that removed the funding of abortion, not the legality of it.
We're talking about both, step by step. Ryan has said he's comfortable that Mitt's policies will be a step towards an eventual total ban.
Of course, there won't be a ban on abortions, they will still happen, either from illicit drugs, back alley practitioners, or, if you're lucky enough to have insurance and a sympathetic OGGYN, there will be a sudden increase in D&C's for "woman problems".
The GOP platform plank approved by their platform committee calls for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbidding abortion. Period. No exceptions, no caveats, no limitations. Even if a woman with a certain to be fatal ectopic pregnancy that was the result of being raped by her father had the money to pay for an abortion herself, the GOP platform committee says she should use the money to buy herself a graveyard plot.
Except now that Akin has brought that plank into the light of day by openly espousing a less extreme version of it, they're saying "sheesh, just because we adopted language categorically excluding the possibility, we didn't actually specifically say their couldn't be a rape or life of the mother exception."
What are you talking about FDH? Federal funding for abortion has been illegal since 1976. The bill in question here is not discussing the issue of funding for abortion, but whether or not personhood should be deemed at conception. If yes then that illegalizes any abortions even in the cases of incest, rape, and/or if the mother's life is in danger.
That is what, according to Pro-Life Wisconsin, Paul Ryan helped to pass.
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:
http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/proLifeIssues.asp?article=Federal+Personhood+Legislation&aid=399&id=7
http://global.christianpost.com/news/personhood-usa-praises-paul-ryans-pro-life-record-following-doubts-over-romney-80118/#LkFQPZOirERZ6xJy.99
So both the liberal websites and the pro-life websites are disagreeing with you and agreeing with each other on Paul Ryan's stance.
Again what are you talking about?
The Dems can run against the Republican platform and divide the Republican party. If Romney and Ryan try to disavow the platform, it could anger the religious right. No amount of dancing around the issue will make it go away if it is used during the debates. The hard right will perceive Romney and Ryan as betrayers of conservative principles. And that could diminish Republican turnout by activists who will not want to be stuck with Romney for 4 or possibly 8 years.
I wish you were right, but these people are bound and determined to get "that boy" out of their white House, and anything else be damned.
"If you tilt your head and close one eye.." or if Thanksgiving comes in June.
In other words uh, pull the pin, toss the pin and duck while holding onto the grenade tightly(shake vigorously with fear to ensure priming).
They know the far right evilgelicals are going to destroy them but dang it they need somebody to vote for them!
"The Republican Party is a pro- life party" except when it comes to the "Death Penalty"
Or War and Stand Your Ground .
or death by pollution from corporations or death from starvation if you don't have a job.
Or you're born to the "wrong" kinds of people (poor, minority, unmarried, or any combination of these).
Then you're just untermensch.
Sorry, Spicer but you are an incompetent liar. Pity that you have such loathing for others that you think they can be told falsehoods and their ability to make decisions based on facts taken away.
Watching these guys (Spicer, Sununuts, Akin, Ryan, any of them) say up is down, black is white, left is right, day is night, and say it in all sincerity staring right at the camera, and have it just go "out there" is completely amazing. I have been at least aware of presidential campaigns since Eisenhower's re-election in '56, and have taken some part in every other one since, and I truly can never ever ever remember lies coming this boldly and blatantly. I mean, not even Nixon did it like this! These people are beyond frickin' belief!
The thought of this mind-set taking power in this country is truly a nightmare.
A set of inconsistent principles:
1) Absolute individual autonomy and personal responsibility in economics with zero government intervention.
2) Absolute government control of individual "moral issues" (e.g. abortion).
As if those two things have nothing to do with each other.
What with all this abortion fervor being kicked up these days, it seems like the perfect time to lay out Mitt Romney's ties to Stericycle, the aborted-fetus disposal company that made Bain big bucks. It stands to reason that this is the real reason Mitt is being so tight-fisted with his tax returns. Mitt's ties to Stericycle (as documented in SEC filings) have been covered by Huffington Post, New York magazine, Mother Jones, and the National Review in recent months, but not a peep from the MSM or even MSNBC. Even the Obama campaign has yet to call him out on this flagrant hypocrisy!!! The right wing may be utterly incapable of altruism when it comes to matters of economy, but when their precious fetuses enter the fray, panties get all kinds of wadded. Mitt would rather have his base learn to love him for his money-grubbing capitalist success story than learn that some of that grubby money came from killing babies! Please take up this story and uncover the embodied hypocrisy that is Mitt Romney!!!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec
Only if it can be used to shame and punish those women.
Wow! I just read the David Corn article in Mother Jones. It is pretty clear that the Bain investment included profiting from the disposal of pre-existing persons. Even if Romney had nothing to do with that particular investment, which is doubtful, his legacy with Bain is that he left none of his "principles" in place there. As the founder, it would seem that he has some responsibility for the culture of the corporation he founded and ran for "25 years." If abortion for any reason is anathema, then wouldn't making profit from the disposal of aborted fetuses also be anathema? This man and his running mate have no principles on which to stand. Akin is their spokesperson, and they are running from him, but not his beliefs.
THANK YOU. Not just Bain investment, Mitt Romney profited from Stericycle through his personal investments.
Mitt Romney has really drawn back the curtain of the right. Of everything this political enigma has gotten away with, Stericycle is the biggest and the most duplicitous, and the best kept of all his secrets.
The left stand by their convictions and we take a lot of heat for them. This political Frankenstein's monster fakes the truth of his wealth, the media fakes the truth of his political platform, and the voters dump their fake convictions to vote for yet another fake conservative.
Stericycle and Mitt Romney has made utter clowns out of the sactimoneous right.
I wonder what the extreme Religious Right would think of Romney's ties to Stericycle. Gee the Evangelicals should really check this out and the White Horse Philosophy of the Mormon Faith.
How many pinheads can dance around the truth?
Why don't people call it like it is. Those people that allow abortions exceptions for rape, incest, and the welfare of the mother should be called pro abortionist not pro life. You can't have it both ways.
MLL
I have more respect for forced-birthers who refuse any exceptions. At least they're being honest. The ones who try to weasel their way to restricting abortion by convincing pro-women folk to give up some of the fight are much worse. Not only are those forced-birthers against freedom for women, they're also in favor of being able to interrogate women about the reason for their actions. They're saying that they, the forced-birthers, get the call on which kinds of abortion are "acceptable", and anything they don't permit is just a slut walk.
No. No weaseling, no "exceptions". Abortion is a basic human right, and curtailing it in any way is wrong. Period.
"Trust me, I'll pull out."
They never do.
Paul Ryan did. He only has 3 children...or he abstained...or used rhythm...or lied about contraception.
Or frequents prostitutes or both.
Do you think the prostitutes (alleged) used birth control? Or trusted him when he said he was uninfected with any STDs.
The thing the Republican platform doesn't touch is what happens if a woman is raped. Whether a guy holds a knife or gun to a woman's head while she is waiting for a city bus or she accepts a date to the movies with some guy who put a date rape drug in her drink and she is later unconscious and raped, she is still forced to carry the child to term. If she has no insurance, she is stuck with the bills and has to provide food, clothing and a home for the next eighteen years for a child she didn't want. Why is the Republican party making no mention of the responsibility of the rapist? Why does he get off scot-free? Why is the victim of the rape responsible financially, especially since she is more than likely going to lose her job. The child can't be left home alone once it's born but there is no provision other than the woman can't have an abortion. Calling themselves pro-life is the biggest lie they've told us so far.
You forgot to mention that the child's biological father has rights! Sick as that may seem, in many states he can exercise the same rights as her husband or ex husband.
That is true. The point is - why should the woman be forced to carry and raise the child? Why doesn't the rapist have to lose his job and take care of the child by himself?
Okay, ladies. Are we going to take this sitting down, 'cause I know we aren't going to take this lying down.
Our president threatens ignorance, not women's autonomy.
I found this article about one of Romney's investments. It looks like something worth checking into, since he's so anti-abortion. It about a company called Stericycle. It deals with disposal of waste...one being aborted fetus's. Romney was or is the major shareholder. It says he made millions off of it. Although it has mant outstanding violations against it.
Tony Blair/Christopher Hitchens Debate, Toronto, Canada 11-26-2010 "Is Religion a Force for Good in the World?
UTube 24:15 1st Rebuttal- Hitchens arguing for more secularism.......
"We know, ladies and gentlemen, as it happens we are the first generation who do really, what the cure for poverty is; It deluded people for a long time. The cure for poverty has a name. In fact, its called The Empowerment of Women.
If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce. If you give them, some say, taking them off the animal cycle of reproduction, which nature and some doctrine, religious doctrine, condemns them. And then if you'll throw in a hand full of seeds, perhaps, and some credit. The floor of everything in that village, not just poverty but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter. Try it in Bangladesh. Try it in Bolivia. It works. It works all the time. Name one religion that stands for that. Where ever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance, and stupidity, and disease in women it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way."
This is what is happening here in America. Under funding TANF and cutting ERDC that subsidizes child care so women have the ability to go to work. Abolishing birth control and a woman's right to abortion for whatever reason. It is insanity and tyranny. What ever it takes, VOTE. Please.
In 2008 the Democrats removed the word "rare" from their platform on abortion, no longer wanting the procedure to be "rare." So, I guess both parties are moving in opposite directions. Republicans wants to end all abortions and the Democrats wants an abortion clinic on every street corner.
source for the mention of the 2008 DNC platform
wow, nice strawman argument! Care to try again?
(Robdon gently soft-balls his party...) Republicans wants to end all abortions (and hyperboles about the other) Democrats wants an abortion clinic on every street corner.
Robdon, can you at least try for a semi-cogent argument, or have you been weened too far off logic?
RobDon that is a completely illogical and hyperbolic argument that completely misrepresents the argument as being presented by Democrats. First and foremost you're assuming motive when you have no evidence of the motive (again what IS it with bloggers here assuming that HYPOTHETICALS are actual facts?! I've never seen this before in my life). You are assuming the removal of rare had to do with misrepresentation. Perhaps Democrats do not feel that one out every four women being raped is a "rare" occurrence? Or perhaps Democrats feel that the inclusion of "rare" negates the focus of the legislation and gives fodder to muddy up the waters? It cannot be something legitimate? It must only be your conspiracy? Secondly no Democrats do not want an abortion clinic on every street corner. Last time I checked the Democratic Party had not pushed to have more clinics opened so even under sarcasm this argument falls flat. Democrats have only pushed that the clinics in current existence not be shut down and that women not be denied access to those services.
We *should* have abortion clinics on every corner. Because, you know, it's a perfectly normal medical procedure that women frequently want or need.
That's why the Democratic party are correct, while the Republican party are a bunch of woman-hating fascists.
And no, this comment is not sarcasm. I mean every single word of it.
Cartoonthenews, thanks for addressing the issue. Two problems:
1. You dismiss my motive for removing "rare" by proposing there could have been other motives, yet offer no proof that they are any more right than mine.
2. Then you dismiss my argument that they want them on every street corner as ludicrous and the very next post shows you I wasn't far off as Shade says they "should" be on every street corner.
Why don't they want the procedure to be "rare?" I would think everyone would want it to be "rare" and not common. Who wants a woman to have to go through an abortion? Not me.
Correct- I was not arguing that the alternatives were more plausible. You, yet again, straw man my argument. Please stop with the logical fallacies and enter the discussion honestly. The point here is that you have no evidence for your hypothetical yet you assert the hypothetical as truth instead of opinion (which it is). You do so as if your assumption is more factual than any other possibility out there and as if your assumption is the only one in existence. Your assumption, however, is neither factual nor is it the only possibility in existence.
So I am to be informed that I am incorrect because of something some random blogger said- as opposed to the Democratic platform to which you referenced- because that person happened to comment after I had posted? And this is therefore evidence that I was wrong? This is post hoc reasoning Rob. You are using hindsight of forward knowledge and then are retroactively applying it to a position to which it does not belong. You are then greatly generalizing (appeal to ignorance fallacy) in an attempt to have the more defensible position.
Secondly your point here is another straw man of the argument as being presented by Shade. The point Shade is arguing here is that there is nothing wrong with abortion clinics and therefore framing the argument as though we should have shame or fear or hatred or some other negative emotion towards the prescence of an abortion clinic is false. Shade is rejecting your incredulous framing of the argument; by straw-manning the position you've now falsely attempted to point out a hypocrisy that was not consistent and that was not even expressed by the person to whom you're attempting to assign the blame. This is beyond illogical.
Begging the question fallacy. You ask the question in order to assert the conclusion you've already came to. You- yet again- assume that it must be X without considering that a. you might be wrong and b. that other possibilities can exist outside of your narrow viewpoint. You are not all knowing, all moral, or all encompassing- therefore it is entirely preposterous for you to propose that you can possibly recognize all possibilities. This is where the term humility comes to play. Recognizing that you cannot know all ends would therefore make you admit that this is exactly what it ACTUALLY is- an opinion. No one can discredit you on the merit of a belief- they can disagree, but it's an opinion so it's not factually based. However you're going a step beyond that. You are asserting your personal belief about Democrats as though it is fact. It is not fact and you should stop presenting it as such. This is especially true if you're attempt is to change opinions or cogently represent the Republican position.
Abortion is a common procedure. It is not rare. You state that you would like abortion to be rare- OK that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It is a legal and most importantly safe medical practice that is protected by the US Constitution. Therefore treating the procedure as though it is something to be ashamed of or bad rubs many people the wrong way. This was the point Shade was arguing.
Wow, that was wordy.
I do think abortions should be rare, not because of shame but because it should be the last in line for ending a pregnancy. An invasive medical procedure versus contraception? Seems obvious to me but then again, I'm a man...what do I know.
There are definitely times when traditional contraception may not have been an option but I would want those times to be rare, too.
Anyway you slice, either you want abortion to be rare or common, I'm for rare.
According to the latest data:
Teens abortion rate: 18 per 1000 pregnancies (.00018%)
20's abortion rate: 38 per 1000 pregnancies (.00038%)
Abortions are rare.
John, I agree but for some reason the DNC (according to last presidential election platform) no longer wants to keep them rare, only safe and legal.
What's your point? Hopefully not the point of the article.
The article makes the implication that because not all pro-choice democrats support partial birth abortions, not all republicans support Akin's comments.
Which may be true but is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Which is that Akin's comments reflect both the party platform and the legislative and rhetorical history of the Republican candidates for president and v. president.
Since the president is not legislatively or rhetorically advocating "abortions on every street corner" or the like, the issue of party platform re: candidate doesn't apply.
Controlling women by forcing them to become pregnant against their will is an old family value in this country, so it must be okay. It was institutionalized in the South and used against African slaves to keep them from running away.
forced pregnancy, forced birth, hmm, sounds uncomfortably like the lebensborn program, but of course without the actual caring for the children.
The progress made in the modern miracle called contraception is not just a women's issue. Millions of couples (including millions of Republicans) use contraception for family planning, so they can start families when they are financially and emotionally ready to do so in this modern world. It just happens to be the female that has to actually administer the contraception but many, many times it is both the male and the female that are making this concious decision not to conceive. I suspect men are still just too uncomfortable to speak out about this, but they should be up in arms so the their contraceptive rights aren't denied. I wonder how many of those that would deny it to others actually use it themselves or their daughters or other loved ones rely on it to avoid poverty!
Good points Jan , cedar rapids here too
How many exemptions are you willing to submit for your pro choice stance?
Cuts both ways. But I am certain no one here nor the moron blog author would give any thought to that concept. Nor that wacko hack Maddow. What a bunch a bigots.
The Republican platform is as solid as the Marxicrats. NO pro lifers represented at the Democratic Convention and NO voice at all towards pro life. and the Republicans are clear on their platform, they are Pro Life (period)
You people are THE biggest hypocrits.
You poor victimized gop voters , you just can not find anyone on The Left to compare Akins , or your own foolish comments too