RSS

Tag Archives: abortion

“I’ve never even thought about it…”

Rep. Jim Buchy of Ohio demonstrates a complete lack of empathy and intellectual curiosity during an interview regarding his efforts to ban abortion in his state.

Now, you might say, “I don’t need to know why people molest children or beat up gay people to oppose those actions.” That’s a fair enough philosophical stance — one I’d give a pass to Joe Schmoe down the street — but I do demand more thoughtfulness from our elected officials. It’s also a matter of pragmatism. If you understood why women have abortions — why otherwise normal, law-abiding people commit what you believe is murder — then you might be able to more effectively limit them.

Buchy goes on to dabble in one of my least favorite habits: It’s when someone refuses to just say “I don’t know.” Three little words. And they are the key to knowledge. Instead, Buchy speculates wildly: “Economics” factors into “some of it”… or a “lot of it.” Who knows? Certainly not Mr. Buchy.

But if women do seek out abortions for economic reasons wouldn’t addressing those issues help reduce abortions? Assistance of some sort for the dramatically expensive cost of prenatal care? Raising the minimum wage? The list goes on. Or you can do nothing and just make abortions more difficult to have or even ban them outright. Of course, that might just result in making cash-strapped expectant mothers desperate and desperation leads to desperate measures.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 4, 2014 in Social Commentary

 

Tags: , ,

Ohio Shows the Ladies How It’s Done…

WideModern_Kasich_130701620x413  “So, Gov. Kasich, shouldn’t we find, I dunno, at least one of those… uh, whaddaya call em? …. women for this photo op of you signing this restrictive abortion bill? What about Dunlap in HR? It’s her first day but she’d just have to smile at the camera. Oh, she’s in orientation? Well, shoot, what about Gladys the sandwich lady? Just take off the apron, spruce up her hair a bit. She doesn’t have to speak English or anything. It’s just a photo. OK? We’re just gonna do this? All right, hey, what do I know?”

Frankly, if Kasich is truly pro-life, the next bill he’ll sign would ban Cincinnati Chili.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 1, 2013 in Political Theatre

 

Tags: , ,

Herman Cain says he opposes abortion in all cases _ no exceptions – The Washington Post

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain says he opposes abortion in all cases _ no exceptions – The Washington Post.

Herman Cain is now talking like a candidate who thinks he has a serious chance of claiming the GOP presidential nomination.

During an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Cain said he’s “pro-life from conception, period.” Far be it for me to give Cain political advice but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether he wants to include the word “period.” He might be better off with “end of story” or “that’s all, folks.”

This is a turn from Cain’s previous statement made way back sometime last week that confused a lot of people because they had either read it or heard it, which is really not the best way to encounter Cain’s stance on the issues.

CAIN:… Abortion should not be legal; that is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Far be it for me to give Cain political advice again but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether, as the former CEO of a pizza chain called “Godfather’s Pizza,” he wants to say it’s “the family’s” decision to break the law.

As wonky as that comment was, it was nothing compared to his attempt to link Planned Parenthood to racial genocide.

Cain said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge that the group denies.

“In Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born,” Cain said.

The indisputable logic here is that Planned Parenthood today is a racist institution because it was founded by a racist. Presumably, Cain also thinks that the United States is a racist country because it was founded by slave owners.

In his new campaign manifesto, “This is Herman Cain: My Journey to the White House,” the candidate states repeatedly and without qualification that “Our Founding Fathers did their job … a great job.” He makes no mention of the blacks who fled George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson during the Revolutionary War in search of their freedom, or the Constitution’s protection of slavery, or that the initial Constitution forbade Congress from prohibiting American participation in the international slave trade for 20 years and indeed made that provision unamendable.

Oh, I guess he doesn’t. Well, let’s not keep Cain’s apparent hand-waving over historical wrongs get in the way of his focus on Planned Parenthood’s racist actions in the present.

Cain said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge that the group denies.

Cain said 75 percent of the organization’s abortion facilities were built in black communities.

“In Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born,” Cain said.

I’m not sure if Cain actually believes this nonsense or whether he’s having fun making racially inflammatory statements that would have resulted in a full-day FOX News marathon of condemnation if Obama had said them or been in the presence of someone who said them. It’s actually possible that Cain supporters, offended by his racial genocide comments, will still blame Obama somehow for it.

During the “Face the Nation” interview, Cain was asked if his anti-abortion stance also extended to cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. Cain went for the hat trick of reproductive regulation and responded, “Correct, that’s my position.”

Far be it for me to give Cain political advice yet again but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether he wants to utter the phrase “that’s my position” when discussing rape or incest. It’s just odd.

Perhaps instead of pizza, Cain’s next business venture will be “No Exceptions” jeans for women.

 

Tags: , ,

The Protect Life Act…

The House just passed the Protect Life Act, which true to its name ensures that all U.S. citizens have access to affordable health care, nutritious meals, and safe housing. It also eliminates capital punishment and reduces our military presence abroad. No, wait, I confused the U.S. with a first world country; the bill actually does the following:

Limitation on Abortion Funding-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion…

So, what’s the point of this? House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says it’s to “ensure that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”

Cantor must think we live in some sci-fi movie in which everyone, after their birth from a futuristic gestation matrix, is assigned a career with no option to choose something else — such as the vegan who got randomly assigned to the slaughterhouse that specializes in cute animals. If you are distinctly anti-abortion, it might behoove you to consider a career in which it will never come up. It’s not that hard. I have friends who are real estate agents and accountants. To my knowledge, they’ve never had to participate in an abortion — even when the market was at its worst.

The bill does make the usual exceptions for “rape or incest,” so apparently the life is less worthy of protection if the father is a bastard and the mother did not actually enjoy the sex that led to conception. There’s also an allowance if the woman might die. However, that only gets her through Level 1 of the government-approved misogyny video game. Level 2 is still the potential refusal of the service if it offends the sensibility of medical provider.

OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as–

‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using–

‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

I’m not a lawyer but basically, if you’re rich, you can still have an abortion — just have your butler hand over some gold bars to the doctor. This seems to put abortion on the same medical footing as a nose job and breast enlargement.

There is a section the prevents “nondiscrimination on abortion,” but that actually is intended to protect medical providers who are anti-abortion and don’t wish to perform them (sort of like the dentists who don’t like root canals):

‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions

I think this is how you ban abortion while people are too busy watching primetime TV to notice. Who needs to bother with Roe v. Wade? Reading this bill, it seems a woman has a better chance blowing up the Death Star than getting an abortion.

Laura Bassett from the Huffington Post reports further:

H.R. 358, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), goes beyond the issue of taxpayer dollars to place actual limits on the way a woman spends her own money. The bill would prevent a woman from buying a private insurance plan that includes abortion coverage through a state health care exchange, even though most insurance plans currently cover abortion.

An even more controversial aspect of the bill would allow hospitals that are morally opposed to abortion, such as Catholic institutions, to do nothing for a woman who requires an emergency abortion procedure to save her life. Current law requires that hospitals give patients in life-threatening situations whatever care they need, regardless of the patient’s financial situation, but the Protect Life Act would make a hospital’s obligation to provide care in medical emergencies secondary to its refusal to provide abortions.

I suppose the bill is appropriately named after all: Its stated desire to “protect life” certainly is an act.

 

Tags: , , ,