Why?

Adventures of a Modern Day, Middle-Aged Hero, on the Glory Road(to family security)

2.21.2011

Why is the GOP so mean?

Yesterday, a young lady of my acquaintance posted a link on facebook to MoveOn.Org's '10 Most Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women'.  While I am not a member of the GOP, if an election looks like it will be close enough to matter(like all three of Dino Rossi's failed attempts to run for major office in Washington),  I will usually vote for the Republican, rather than do the right thing and vote for the Libertarian.  In the end though, I really hate blanket attacks on either party, although I am guilty of doing so myself from time to time.  While few and far in between, there is the occasional Democrat who is not a total waste.  

1.  Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

 Almost blogged about this a week or two ago when it was big news.  Not from the abortion standpoint...that is one of the few things guaranteed to get people even more spun up than guns.  But, as a father of two girls, the terrors of rape are something that will never be far from my mind.

  The furor arose over a bill introduced by Republicans which used the words 'Forcible Rape' in regards to the government funding of abortions.  As stated, let's ignore the purpose of the bill, and instead focus on 'Forcible Rape'.  The big complaint with this term was that it would open the door to not counting statutory rape, 'date rape', getting a girl drunk or stoned.  Maybe...because later in the article they also go on to say that legally speaking, forcible rape is a null term...not properly defined in federal criminal code or in many states.
  
  Rape is rape.  If you want to look at the word 'forcible', well...in my opinion, anything that involves a woman having sex against her will is force: getting someone drunk, stoned or roofied up removes their ability to think straight, and is a force.  Someone over a certain age using their age as a lever against someone below a certain age is a force.  I HOPE that is how things would have been interpreted...anything less would have really messed up.

2.  A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
 This is a true statement, and I have no real answer for it other than to point out it is one person introducing this proposed change, not the whole GOP.  I see no reason to change the legal wording here.

All I really can say is that as a man, you do reach a point in your life when you realize the power that an accusation can have...and it is scary.  Whether that accusation is proven or not is usually not an issue...for many crimes of a sexual nature, the accusation itself is enough to destroy someones life.  In that case, it is up to the media to remain objective....which is not likely to happen.  But...any woman who has suffered a rape is a victim, and should not be refereed to otherwise.

3.  In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
 Nope, not for real.  The wording of the bill was originally intended to modify the justifable homicide laws in South Dakota making it permissable to kill someone while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child.  Yes...this could have been interpreted as permission to go kill an abortion doctor...but when questioned the, gentleman who introduced the bill attempted to clear it up.  Basically, it meant if you saw someone attacking your pregnant wife or daughter, and you felt that attack was placing the pregnancy at risk...homicide was justifiable.  

Certainly sounds like a war on women to me.

4. Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.


6.  Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7. And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool. 

8. Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

Gonna lump all these together under the 'Gee, I hope so' category.  Not that I take glee in these particular programs losing money and funding, but, money has to be cut from somewhere, and some of those things are going to be sad, and yes, people will suffer.

5.  In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

Okay...part of me wants to go all free market and say if a hospital doesn't want to provide a service, than they shouldn't have to provide that service.  The problem comes in when you figure the federal funding side of things into it.  If you have a 100% Privately Funded Hospital or Clinic, I don't think you can force them to provide a service they don't want to.  But...if you are taking federal money, you better be willing to perform any service that is federally legal.

9. Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country. 

10. And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
 These two both fell victim to a recent amendment voted onto the H.R.1 funding bill.

As someone who just a couple of paragraphs ago was all about cutting funding to Head Start and Food Providing programs, you would think I would be all happy about another $317 Million being saved by this amendment...but I am not.  Planned Parenthood is about so much more than abortions...there really is some attempt there at PLANNING PARENTHOOD...and spending the money up front in family planning and pre and Peri-natal care would be a better investment than having to pay it to support people who weren't prepared to have children.

As for their last dig at funding the contraception of wild horses....poetic license again.  What Dan Burton's amendment really did was seek to bar budget money from being spent on wild horses and burros 'except for the purposes of fertility controls.'  Basically...no more spending money to round them up and keep them in pens and corals...catch them, sterilize them, and get them back out again...much cheaper.

Or heck...feed them to all the hungry old folks that lost funding in the other proposals.

3 comments:

  1. It's just unfortunate that being a realistic pragmatist gets you labeled as mean.

    Me personally, I would love to see everyone clothed, fed and taken care of...but there is only so much I am willing to pay out of my paycheck to see it happen....and I don't expect people who make more than me to give up more of their income to make it happen either...so, there is that mean, cruel harsh REALITY creeping in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Y'know, I didn't even bother to read it. I've given up with arguing with the liberals on my Facebook. Even when I present them with links to nonbiased sources (i.e. newspapers, Treasury Dept. documents) expressly refuting what they believe, they won't change their minds. I'm at the point where I just roll my eyes and move on.

    And about number 5: The conscience clause is nothing new. It's been around as long as I've been aware of politics, so at least since the Clinton administration. Catholic hospitals, for instance, do not have to perform abortions (although, in truly life-threatening circumstances, they would). What this refers to isn't a Republican move to grant this ability to hospitals but a Democratic move to end it.

    ReplyDelete