We talked last week about new advertising from the left on reproductive rights, including a MoveOn.org Political Action spot from actors Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria, and Kerry Washington that emphasizes Mitt Romney's intentions to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
In response, Concerned Women for America, a long-time leader in the religious right movement, released a curious video that seeks to mimic the actors from a far-right perspective.
The message is a little disjointed, but this right-wing organization that desperately wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned appears to have created a video that says Mitt Romney won't overturn Roe v. Wade.
One of the people in the video, in reference to the "Hollywood women" in the MoveOn ad, asks, "Have they ever heard of the separation of powers?"
I suppose it's worth explaining, then, that a Romney administration would not literally, directly end a Supreme Court precedent. As I suspect Concerned Women for America understands, a Romney administration would place far-right justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, and they would overturn Roe v. Wade.
There are four current justices who are 73 or older. Justice Ginsburg, a leading progressive voice on the court, is the oldest at 79. CWA hopes for a Romney victory precisely because of the future of the Supreme Court and constitutional law.
It seems the organization hopes to airbrush this reality, leaving women voters with the impression that the Roe precedent isn't really in jeopardy since Romney/Ryan couldn't simply wipe it out on their own. But this is silly, predicated on public ignorance, and ironic given CWA's agenda.
"Separation of powers" notwithstanding, Romney wants to overturn Roe; his platform calls for a constitutional amendment that bans all abortions; Romney said he "absolutely" supports a "Personhood" measure that would ban all abortions and some forms of birth control; Romney would be "delighted" to sign a bill that would no longer allow abortions "at all, period"; and Romney intends to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood. From a religious right perspective, this is an agenda CWA should celebrate, not obscure.
Leave a Comment:
Public ignorance is all they've got. Though in Akin and the like, they've got pubic ignorance too <cue rim shot>.
Except, of course, that they know a majority of their fellow Americans won't and don't actually support their real agenda. Obscuring it is thus their only effective strategy for enacting it.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
So these talking lovelies are suppose to make the rest of us women change our minds about letting some man dictate our rights. It has nothing to do with the unborn human life, and it does not come down to that one point. It covers a lot more womens rights than just that one.
Now we are going to condem another group of women who speak out about their rights. Where will it end?
A "rant" involves intelligence.
An "ignorant" lacks any of that.
Aiken and Murdoch fall into the second category.
Men lack the prerequisites to claim intelligence in that department.
I think all men should respect that.
And women should understand the difference.
Concerned Women of America. Or as Fred Clark calls them "Ladies Against Women," led by Bev LaHaye, the wife of the nutjob who wrote the Left Behind series. What else do you need to know?
Why is it that none of your "journalists" are reporting the fact that the state Department had emails stating that Bengazzi was a terrorist attack in real time and that this email went throughout the state department and that a meeting was held in the situation room that evening?????? Why would the president say it was a video for 2 weeks when they had absolute knowledge on Sept. 11, 2012 that it in fact was a terrorist attack? And how can this be a position of strength if this administration is not forthcoming with the information they knew from day ONE???????????????? You are a great dissappointment in not reporting what is true to the American people. How do you all sleep at night ???
Sigh.
Debbie, They are hiding the story. Avoiding the inevitable. I posted two articles one from Reuters which the Blog Author deleted. They are cowards protecting their lying president.
The response you get below your post (sigh) is the usual dismissive attitude you will get before they gang up on you for being a stupid wingnut Fox viewer republican neo con conservative etc etc.
You watch I will post another Benghazi story and they will delete it.
"Against ignorance, the gods themselves strive in vain.'
Something tragic happened in Libya. Before any chance of an investigation, the Republican party machine began throwing smoke in another attempt to keep YOU from thinking about how they are disenfranchising American citizens. If they deprive your neighbor of the most basic right, the right to vote, simply because your neighbor disagrees with them, you better hope YOU never disagree with them.
Martin Niemoller, Lutheran minister, @1937.
Debbie: I like to wedge a pillow between my legs, but the single most important item in my quest for sleep at night is medical marijuana. I like hybrids, OG Kush and White Reclure do the trick for me. Thanks for the interest.
Let's just step back a second. What does this have to do with the above article? Post in an appropriate area. Also, try to have a fact-based discussion. That might help with your reception.
And I believe trying to hijack a thread in an inflammatory way would be called "trolling." Either you believe what you say and find a proper forum to discuss, or you are doing something unacceptable. Just a thought.
so long deb
sigh is right.
Is it really this impossible to find a conservative that understands that 2 separate things can go on at the same time, in the same place and that this can cause confusion? Further more is it so hard for conservatives to understand the difference between calling something a premeditated attack and a spontaneous one? The confusion was whether or not it was a premeditated attack and not a spontaneous one as the result of outrage over the video since there was also a protest that took place in Benghazi at the same time the attack took place (and that protest was over the video). How difficult of a concept is this? Seriously?
You are so funny Lebowsky, I don't even do that stuff and I had to lol.
Ah, Debbie, you must have been sleeping yourself when Romney got his pasty white ass handed to him over this very subject during the second debate.
Perhaps you could stay up a bit later tonight and actually research some facts. You know, like truth? Not Fox truthiness, but really, really honest facts. Or you could ask a fifth grader to do it for you.
So Deb, you really want our government to release everything to the public? Like Issa did? You really want to endanger the lives of the people over there that are involved trying to help us? In my opinion, the correct response to this from any administration on the right or left is "What happened is a tragedy and we don't want to come to any conclusions or assumptions until we have all of the facts." and leave it at that. Your an idiot.
Steve forgot to point out that, as a result of the Hyde Amendment, taxpayers aren't funding abortions. This advertisement leads the viewer to believe otherwise.
Steve nailed it when he wrote that the ad is predicated on public ignorance.
They've also passed 5 other laws and 1 EO against federal $$ going for abortions. They want more. And still won't believe them
Best not quarrel with a lunatic because people will assume you are also crazy.
No government money has ever gone to abortion to the best of my knowledge.
That whole line of reasoning is imaginary.
Funny, I don't remember being taught in Sunday School about abortion. I was taught about Jesus and how he helped people, and didn't judge them, and was against those that were self-righteous and thought they knew how everyone should live their life. I must have gone to one of those "cult" churches...
Thanks, Forthebest. I'm a skeptic/nonbeliever, and didn't know the Jesus disapproved of self-righteous, wrathful zealots. You've enlightened me.
Of course the GOTP wants to ban abortion, and they are counting on the ignorance of Americans regarding Supreme Court appointments. Yep, the GOTP supports "life" right until it comes out of the womb, then it better learn how to fend for itself!
Dayum sheeple!
"...until it reaches military age. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers"
"If you're pre born your fine if you're pre born you're screwed"
--George Carlin
It is the Jihad right wing attack on women
erm it should read if you're pre-born you're fine; if you're post-born you're screwed
That's why we call them TeaHadists and TeaVangelicals, gurliekangaroo.
This is another reason why a Democratic (or liberal) president is so vital.
After 20 of 28 years of right-wing philosophies from 1980-2008 more leftists are needed to keep thing in balance.
The first amendment prohibits a ban on abortions until after the fetus is mature enough that it is over 50% likely to live if born. Abortion ban is constitutional only if it applies to month 7 to 9. The Ninth amendment deals with things like this.
Any law that bans abortion before that is based on religion because "life" is a religious concept (i.e.: violates first amendment).
The woman has the right to pursue medical treatment without government intrusion before the 3rd trimester because civil rights do not extend to the fetus until the 3rd trimester begins.
Roe Vs. Wade (1973)
That logic has not changed.
The "over 50% chance to live" thing is very, very important to this argument. You probably could argue that we can ban abortion after a month since there's probably a statistical percentage that the fetus will live. That statistical percentage, however, won't be a significantly compelling number.
one step further.
fetus must survive with no intervention by medical staff for 1 hour, as the death be God's will, God's plan, and now God's intent (perhaps the most dangerous).
Per WikiPedia about Miscarriage "The NIH reports: It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost(aborted) spontaneously with no clinical recognition. Among those women. who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. It seems fertilized eggs are not sacred to nature so save your sanctimony and admit your hero is a liar and cares no more for eggs than he does the mother or child.
Ditto.
The fetus is more dead than alive until the 3rd trimester.
About 100 genetic mutations happen each generation. That is why there is so much variation in our appearances.
Most of these mutations are harmless.
Most spontaneous abortions involve incompatible mutations that are fatal. This can cause things that are pretty gruesome.
Mutations sterilize about 10% of the population. About 1/3 of us develop cancer or other diseases because of harmful mutations that don't cause spontaneous abortion.
I read that a week old embryo is about 1/100th the size of a fly's brain.
That is about the size of the average Mitt wit brain you know, those who post on liberal/left sites wish their brains were 1/100th the size of a fly's brain, why with that much brain power they might be able to do more then repeat the same lie at a time and they might learn something beyond what they are told to repeat.
So these lovely ladies are saying Republicans do not go anti-womens rights crazy the very minute they get power??? Oh... That "seperation of powers" strawman covers everything, right?
I do not get understand the right wing fascination with my "lady parts" They are mine. You have no business sticking your nose in where it does not belong.
If a woman is forced to give birth to the child of that rapist is she going to be able to sue said rapist for child support?
My big concern with the assault on women's reproductive freedom is the right wing must be planning a war with somebody in the next 18 years or so and they need the cannon fodder. It isn't for the love of children and it most certainly is not about a love of women.
Greedy Old Perverts, they have been peeking up womens skirts for years.
What's crazy is if the woman is forced to carry a rapists baby to term, the rapist can fight for custody of that baby once he gets out of prison.
I believe in God but I would never purport to know God's "will" or what God " intended" to happen. It is a painfully obvious fact that religious fanaticism is responsible for most of the world's problems. These radical rights want to bring what is happening in the middle east here to America. The fact that they are so desperate to change how others believe to their own radical views speaks for itself. It is time to vote them out and start promoting more live and let live philosophies.
What's the point of deciding who you will vote for based on their stance on abortion if you don't believe the president can’t do anything about it? Not making any judgments but I'm curious, are the individuals in this ad actors?
Regarding the issue of giving an embryo the same rights as a person, by doing this you essentially strip the rights from the Mother of this embryo....
In the video the women say they are paying for another women abortion.
Can someone explain why they think they're paying? I can't understand why they think they're paying??
And why they think it is more invasive than forcing a woman to have a child from rape/incest?
I'm sure they know full well that they are not paying for anyone else's abortion, but they are malicious and find it ideologically useful to pretend that they are paying for someone else's abortion.
Mitt wits believe they are the only ones who work and pay taxes what else can you expect, it is just another lie based on Reagans welfare queen lies, once the right gets told something about one thing they find other things they can use the lie on.
Boy, Rachel, on the Row vs Wade subject, did you hear about the moronic right wing Senate candidate in Indiana - whom Romney still supports? If a woman gets pregnant from a rape the baby was God's intention - so she must have the baby. I want to ask that total moron if his wife was raped and got pregnant would he welcome that baby into his life as a gift from God? Then, what if the guy who raped her is a black African so that the baby will have a very dark complexion - meaning every time he looks at that "gift from God" he will remember it came from his wife's rapist - would he still welcome that baby into their home with open arms, no questions asked? I'm betting NOT. What a friggin' moron.
What kind of man would force his daughter to have the child of a rapist? I can't imagine any lower life than that.
Before Roe V Wade it happened a lot and the children became more outcasts within the family where they were treated more as indentured servants then a member of the family, as people blamed the child for the actions of the father. These same people also tend to believe that disabilities are caused by gods anger only instead of taking it out on the parents he took it out on their kids as some weird sort of twisted punishment.
Just a tidbit for you to read whom....
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/another-abortion-falsehood-from-obamas-truth-team/
No rational thinking person would force anyone to have a child from rape......the fact that a couple of Morons said some ignorant stuff proves that there are idiots that get elected into office and nothing more.
Just another reason to be gay! Just saying, republicans..
Abortion is a non-issue, or a (sort of) Santorum, whichever you prefer! Jesus loves butt-babies, of that you can be certain!
It's about time we passed "Personhood"! For too long, women have had to endure the discomfort of pregnancy. Finally, women will be able to file trespassing charges against those pesky embryos or evict them, like any other unwanted tenant!
It's time we realize that the only purpose women have in life is to be baby factories. They should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term and spend their entire time raising children. We have to return to the 18th century when women fulfilled their God given purpose and produced up to 18 children or at least as many as they could before they died.
This is the Romney/Ryan doctrine.
Nice try Dummie from st. Louis but think progress.com has published the timeline on their web site and the emails lyou are referring to were not from Benghazi...check your source...they were for a totally different site not Benghazi. Most on this site already know this and think it is pathetic that your side is trying to politicize this tragedy. You must be a FOX viewer or GOP TV as it was originally titled. We sleep poorly worrying about dummies like you who refuse to investigate and just accept misinformation because you are just so filled with blame damage it's hard to think of you as a citizen.
Why would any president act like you are trying to assert...what would be the pay off? Your whole premise is just stupid.
The pro-life strategy seems be to divert attention from the real issue. So how do we raise public awareness about this?
If Romney is elected president and Roe v. Wade is overturned due to his assumed selection of conservative supreme court justices, can we talk about how many women died self-inducing abortion pre Roe v. Wade? Can we talk about how many women over the age of the 35 would give birth to down syndrome children and how there aren't enough public aid resources to address that influx in the population? (We can't even address the needs of the 1 in 88 children being diagnosed with autism today, not to mention the legal problems these parents of kids on the autism spectrum face. How much worse will it be if there are more people with mental challenges in our population?) Can we talk about the burden of crime our society would endure if and when women are forced to have children before they're ready to be parents? (Read Freakonomics) These are all issues that I don't think are being discussed, and I wonder if it's a matter of resources. Is it more important to illustrate in simple terms how exactly our executive and judicial branch of government interact and work together and how if Romney is elected as POTUS he would help to overturn Roe v. Wade? Should we ignore bringing to light the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade? There's two parts of ignorance here that need to be addressed which one is more important to the "undecided" voters?
If the wives of Mitt Romney's sons became pregnant by a serial rapist, would the Romneys feel that they were blessed by God? Would they encourage carrying the child to term?
Would they love the child and never relive the agony of the rape every time they saw the child?
For all of you who think "pro-choice" is about going against God's will, think again. It also gives YOU the right to say you are pro-life. Pro-choice simply means just that...we can make our own choices and decisions.Think about this man,
who Romney is supporting, who thinks it's God's will if women become pregnant as a result of rape. I guess if a rapist infects a woman with HIV or AIDS that would be God's will also. Just remember, if Romney gets elected, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices that see things his way and once that is done, Roe v Wade will be overturned. Please think about the implications and ramifications of what that would mean.
What if Mr Romney's or Mr Ryan's wife is raped in the parking lot of her local mall. The result is a pregrancy. How would Mr Romney and/or Mr Ryan feel about supporting this child? Will the husband give this child his name? Will he or she be treated equally as the other children? What about inhertance?
Do they know those answers......No they don't. Good thinking, marja.
The way they think is in the terms of dictatorship for everyone else, but not themselves.
Don't discount their hypocrisy. Surely if the situation you describe happens: 1) you will not know about it (the pregnancy part) and 2) an abortion will take place in a foreign country while on vacation, which will always be an option for the wealthy. This is only an issue for Republicans to gain the support of the anti-abortion crowd; the type that will vote for them solely based on their position on abortion.
The biggest "life begins at conception" issue that crosses over wide swaths of the political spectrum is the fact that the in vitro fertilization industry will be killed by this line of thinking. DISPOSING OF EXTRA EMBRYOS IS MURDER BY THEIR LOGIC. This is unavoidable with IVF. My wife who is a religious Catholic and swears by her anti-abortion views took full advantage of all science had to offer when it came to giving her the opportunity to have a family. ANYONE WITH TRUE FAMILY VALUES WOULD CONCUR! This is the nail in the coffin of the GOP's slippery slope argument that government should be making these decisions for individuals.
I've heard that Romney's sons used IVF. They deserve privacy, but Romney and Ryan and Mourdock do not deserve privacy for what they are doing.
If these Republican men think they will get away with legislating people's bodies when it comes to reproductive choice, maybe we should warn them now that vasectomies and condoms are forms of contraception!!