Intrusive, Vagina-Probing, Have-The-Rapist’s-Baby-Or-Else Big Government

From HuffPo:

Notice the “at least” in the subheader. There could be more. And remember, too, that Romney and Ryan are just as extreme, when it comes to their preferences, even though Romney, but not Ryan, has tried to have it three or four or more ways on abortion.

Again, for the record, Romney’s real position, as ABC News reported in 2007 after a Republican debate:

“I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don’t want to have abortion in this country at all, period,” Romney said at the time. “That would be wonderful. I’d be delighted.”

Pressed CNN host Anderson Cooper, “The question is: Would you sign that bill?”

“Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are,” Romney replied. “That’s not where America is today. Where America is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.”

As for Paul Ryan, he said in an interview with WJHL in Roanoake, Virginia:

REPORTER JOSH SMITH: Our viewers would love know…specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?

PAUL RYAN: I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that, the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.

These are radicals. These are reactionaries. These are, in fact, radical reactionaries. Democrats have to keep pounding this into Americans’ heads, not just American women’s heads. These folks mean it when they say they want to use government—intrusive, vagina-probing, have-the-rapist’s-baby-or-else big government—to eliminate all abortions. All of us have to tell our friends, our family, our co-workers, our neighbors, about what is happening. Then we have to keep reminding them.

Even 76% of non-candidate Republicans believe abortion should be legal in the case of rape, for God’s sake, which is why Romney has tried to hide his extremism by copping a relatively less radical, but still radical nonetheless, position summarized as “only legal in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”  In the context of what he have heard from the mouths of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, that sounds like a pro-choice liberal speaking. But it isn’t. It’s still a reactionary speaking, still a radical position to hold. And besides that. Romney is still—still!—supporting Mourdock.

Whether it is this year’s crop of Republican senate hopefuls, or whether it is Mitt Romney’s expressed delight in signing a potential law that would eliminate all abortions, or whether it is Paul Ryan’s strange claim that rape is, in terms of the abortion issue, just another “method of conception“—God, that’s offensive—the message that these extremists would radically change the cultural landscape for women in this country has to be broadcast far and wide and often.

These zealots aren’t kidding, and Americans need to be told that again and again and again.

Previous Post

3 Comments

  1. N.Michael Barrows

     /  October 26, 2012

    “Romney is still—still!—supporting Mourdock.”

    I was more than a little stunned when I read the other day that, even after the comments that Mourdock made, Mittens was still going to support him. And then I heard what John McCain said about Colin Powell’s endorsement of President Obama: “I just wish he would stop calling himself a Republican. We Republicans tend to vote for other Republicans.”
    Aha! Now it makes sense. A candidate’s policies, thoughts, beliefs, and how they affect the American public; these are not what is important, not what matters. No, what matters, if one is to believe Sen. John McCain, is that if a candidate is Republican he will get the votes of fellow Republicans regardless of policies. Now, that is some Brotherhood.

    Like

    • Good insight, N. Michael, but rather than characterize the attitude as “brotherhood”, I would say tribalism. I have noticed that the few Conservatives (with a capital “C”) who hover and criticize liberal blog posts like this one typically view their efforts not as discourse but as verbal combat.

      Tribalism is intricately involved with human evolution, a basic trait not easily overcome by rational thought. This dichotomy, I believe, is at the heart of the question as to whether rationality can prevail over mankind’s baser instincts. The present state of American politics does not leave me sanguine about it.

      Like

  1. The Eyes Have It | Still Skeptical After All These Years
%d bloggers like this: