Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:26 AM
SpartanDem (4,517 posts)
Mourdock, Akin unmask the anti-choice crowd
The latest entrant into the Republican rape insensitivity bake-off is Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who said tonight that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” He, of course, joins fellow Senate candidate Todd Akin, with his now-canonical “legitimate rape” comment, and Rep. Joe Walsh, running for election in Illinois, who claimed there was no reason a woman would ever need an abortion to save her life or preserve her health. The trailblazer was tea party candidate Sharron Angle, who failed to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada two years ago, and famously said that if a hypothetical teenager was raped and impregnated by her father, it was an opportunity to turn “a lemon situation into lemonade.”
Here’s why this is happening: The newer crop of Republican candidates and elected officials, are, more often than not, straight from the base. They’re less polished than their predecessors; they’re more ideologically pure. As a result, they’ve accidentally been letting the mask slip and showing what’s really at the core of the right-to-life movement.
For years, the movement has fought plausible charges that it is anti-woman by repackaging its abortion restrictions, in Orwellian fashion, as protections for women. They’ve done it so successfully that until recently, when so many alleged “gaffes” went viral, no one really noticed. What is the so-called Women’s Health Defense Act? A proposed ban on abortion before viability. What are “informed consent” laws purporting to give women all the information they need before having abortions? Forced ultrasounds, transvaginal, and some of them involving the forced viewing of the ultrasound, at the woman’s expense, under the stated supposition that she has no idea what’s growing inside her unless someone makes her look. (Never mind that 60 percent of women who have abortions have already given birth at least once.)
For now, anti-abortion absolutists have some explaining to do, and they’re doing it very, very badly. That’s because they aren’t used to cloaking their views in the rhetoric of compassion, something George W. Bush was so much better at. They’re used to how the base talks about this stuff amongst itself, when it’s open about seeing women as vessels whose decision-making is subsumed to God’s plan or to baby making. (Paul Ryan is ideologically aligned with this crowd, but usually has the political skills and earnest manner to keep him out of trouble. When he got asked in the debate about religion, he answered by talking about “science.”)
The article make a great point, they're not more crazy than before they were always this crazy. They just did much better job of hiding it than before.
4 replies, 803 views
Mourdock, Akin unmask the anti-choice crowd (Original post)
Response to SpartanDem (Original post)
Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:42 AM
blkmusclmachine (16,149 posts)
1. This is only their next step.
I read that the President of the MS Tea Party hates that women have the right to vote. And the President is a vagina-carrier! Women, get your burqas ready.
Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #1)
Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:59 AM
Zalatix (8,994 posts)
2. Pro-lifers are coming to condemn Akin. Wait for it!
They'll be out there attacking him ANY SECOND NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Response to SpartanDem (Original post)
Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:44 AM
Freddie (2,532 posts)
3. Abortion comments on Redstate
"The life of the baby comes first, and shouldn't the father have a say here?"
"The only reason women forgave Clinton for his zipper problem was that he's fine with them killing their babies."
"Tie her to a chair for 9 months, that baby deserves life!"
Talk about exposing the underbelly, I had to stop reading.