GOP’s 'War on Women' is real - keeping the government out of your uterus
Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 09:13 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
Archives
![]() |
| Arizona Governor Jan Brewer |
Forget keeping the government out of your bedroom. Now, thanks to an unprecedented new Arizona law you'll even have to struggle to keep them out of your ovaries, ladies.
In case you missed it, a controversial new law was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last Thursday with the Orwellian sounding name of the Women’s Health and Safety Act. Experts say it effectively bans abortions after 18 weeks and declares that a woman could be pregnant even two weeks before she had sex.
You read that right. Arizona’s new law starts the clock on pregnancies at the woman’s last menstrual period, which of course could be two weeks before fertilization even happened.
The new law bans abortions at 18 weeks of pregnancy, which is at about the same time a doctor would begin to perform ultrasounds to detect abnormalities. That means if any are found the mother will still be expected to carry it to term, even if they are expected to die within hours or days of birth.
As goes Arizona, so goes the Republican Party. But here’s another fact -- 77 percent of Americans don’t think birth control should be up for debate at all, according to a Bloomberg national poll.
Full disclosure -- I’m not a woman or heterosexual so clearly I’m not directly affected by this controversy (and when I read about legislation like Arizona’s I’m thankful of the fact because I think it might enrage me in a way that I might not enjoy).
Mitt Romney has also recently revealed that if elected he plans to shut down Planned Parenthood because he doesn't agree with its mission (and I imagine he wants to cut all spending on programs that don’t directly benefit millionaires).
Now if I was a woman that is something I would probably find quite upsetting, since curbing women’s health services has never struck me as a good idea.
I know what’s coming now, of course. The name-calling. It seems conservatives in the U.S. have long ago decided that anyone who supports abortion rights anywhere under any circumstances will be told they have no morals, no conscience and no guiding principals.
I can certainly understand their profound opposition to abortion, and I can agree that it is hardly a procedure that anyone should pursue lightly, but I don’t believe that anyone actually does. I cannot accept that a complete ban on it would only benefit society in the ways that they insist.
Last week we learned that GOP Congressmen (and now vice presidential candidate) Paul Ryan and Todd Aiken are against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which they apparently see as unfortunate but final methods of contraception. That kind of absolutism seems high handed and cruel to me, punishing the victim and in a real sense re-victimizing her all over again.
Ryan and Aiken have also offered us two deeply problematic new definitions of sexual assault, with their calibrated talk of “forcible” rape and “legitimate” rape, which rightly appalled the nation. And for the record, their bill to redefine rape as “forcible” had 227 Republican cosponsors.
There have been other recent Republican moves to make abortion expensive, difficult or even unobtainable.
Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina have all passed transvaginal ultrasound mandates, whereby any woman seeking an abortion is now mandated by the state to have a painful and invasive procedure that seems expressly designed to humiliate her.
Perhaps most startling of all was conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh’s recent decision to demonize Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for daring to suggesting that mandating insurance coverage for contraceptive pills would be worthwhile, since they help women with a number of health problems quite unrelated to their contraceptive properties.
Limbaugh, who reportedly makes about $40 million a year, lost multiple advertisers for his outburst, which most people rightly saw as shockingly sexist.
So I am not sure why, in an election year, the GOP have opened this multi-pronged war on women’s reproductive rights.
Republicans say they champion “small government,” but it’s amazing how invasive that “small government” can be to your personal life.
It seems to most observers that today’s GOP is more interested in tackling the challenges facing the nation with faith rather than reason. Perhaps it because we live in a time when many of its most ardent supporters now claim that men and dinosaurs once lived peacefully together on Earth, that our planet is only 6,000 years old, and that any moment Our Lord will return -- so why worry about unemployment or health care or the environment or even tomorrow?
51 Comments
15 - 51 | See all comments
maireadinmelb | Sep 01, 2012, 10:14 PM EDT
Cahir, just pointing out that all pregnancies are measured as from your Last menstrual period. That is the confusion between a 40 week pregnancy and the old 9 months pregnant! Anyway any woman who votes for this archaic FREEDOM HATERS deserves what she gets! There is no excuse for governments or churches to tell a woman what to do with her body!
Funny Women can have guns but no choices in regards to their bodies!!
Report abuse
seanomelb | Sep 01, 2012, 08:55 PM EDT
Vote for Romney/Ryan and put your watch back 300 years. Maybe they'll reintroduce the "Inquisition".They have already begun by having an inquisition on the rights of women,the poor and the middle classes
Report abuse
eiriamach | Sep 01, 2012, 12:43 PM EDT
From the NY Times, 7/10, "Meeting Contraception Needs...": "A new study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University [published in 'Lancet'] shows that fulfilling unmet contraception demand by women in developing countries could reduce global maternal mortality by nearly a third, a potentially great improvement for one of the world’s most vulnerable populations." You can call opposition to women's health needs "pro-life" as though to suggest stupidly that women are opposed to "life"! But the hypocrisy of this word choice is plain: you really mean "let women die," don't you? And the fetus within to die also, often enough.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Sep 01, 2012, 12:29 PM EDT
Gearoid4, please name just one educated MD who uses "pregnancy" to describe a fertilized ovum that washes out of a woman's body without implanting in her uterus. Or quote one certified text published in this century and used in a medical school curriculum that defines "pregnancy" in such a way. I'll wait while you search.... Your use of the clause "life starts" is idiosyncratic, to put the point mildly. We are talking about living cells. The question is when a conglomerate of cells becomes an organism capable of life outside the uterus, without the life-giving resources of a woman's body. A malignant tumor is also "life," yet you'd rush to a surgeon to have it removed. Your choice of words illuminates nothing and misrepresents the issues. It's strange indeed that you call a voting record that would condemn many women, girls, and fetuses to death a "pro-life" voting record.
Report abuse
Gearoid4 | Sep 01, 2012, 10:18 AM EDT
@Eiriamach
"Only Roman Catholics consider a fertilized ovum to be a pregnancy before implantation..". It is not only Catholics, but well informed doctors and biologists as well. The "pro-choice" lobby want us to believe that life starts at the point of implantation, to distract from the reality that practically all modern birth control pills have the potential to cause early abortions i.e ability to expel the fertilized ovum from the uterine wall before it can implant. We know that life factually begins at conception.
Senator Ryan has been entirely consistent in his pro-life voting record and will bolster the chances of the GOP among Catholics and other people who take their Faith seriously
Report abuse
EphraimKibbey | Aug 31, 2012, 07:49 PM EDT
@TexasMJM - Hadn't you heard? The current GOP politicians are LIARS! What they said yesterday is not what they say today and that will not be what they say tomorrow. In 2010 they SAID that if we elected them, they would bring us JOBS. Instead they have brought us 32 House bills banning the use of tax money for abortions, countless state bills limiting women's rights, bills that disenfranchize the poor, the elderly and students, bills that take away union rights and state budgets that fire countless teachers, firemen and policemen. Had they just not done the latter, we would be at 7% unemployment right now. The GOP want control of the government (in America an institution designed to protect the rights of the people) so that they can disassemble it returning power to the wealthy. They care more about what they get from their lobbyists than they do about America and its citizens. SHAME ON THEM!
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Aug 31, 2012, 07:40 PM EDT
It's a 'selective surgery' is it? Women who are raped just elect to have one do they? And under a Romney/Ryan administration they'd have two leaders who want to ban the process outright. Gee, there's some progress for you.
Report abuse
bob40wil | Aug 31, 2012, 06:22 PM EDT
What a bunch of BS, have all the abortions you want but why should insurence co.'s pay for it except if the mothers life is at stake. Other them emergancysa it's selective surgery.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Aug 31, 2012, 04:38 PM EDT
TexasMJM has a marvelous immunity to facts. Which of the following, drawn from an 8/27 NY Times editorial, does TexasMJM think is not factual? ". . . Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform.... Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid." From Maureen Dowd's NY Times column: "Ryan co-sponsored [with Akin] the Sanctity of Life Act enshrining a fertilized egg with the definition of 'personhood' and supported a bill Democrats nicknamed the 'Let Women Die Act,' which would have let hospitals that get federal money deny women abortions even in life-threatening circumstances." Clearly, Ryan's position is not just aligned with Akin's but even more lethal to women--so much for the value of "Life."
Report abuse
yoginiha | Aug 31, 2012, 04:23 PM EDT
Most people, including medical professionals, count the first day of the last menstrual period as the first day of pregnancy. It's more difficult to know the first day actual conception.
I think the article seems a bit picky and tries to find everything negative it possibly can about AZ law.
As someone who has had 4 miscarriages in a row, I have no sympathy for a woman who gets a late term abortion. 18 weeks is quite late. By then the baby is kicking and the ultrasound can show that the baby is either a boy or a girl. Bless AZ for passing this law.
Report abuse
TexasMJM | Aug 31, 2012, 04:22 PM EDT
The attempt to link Paul Ryan to Todd Aiken's comments concerning rape are nothing more than cheap election year politics. Ryan has stated clearly, firmly and repeatedly that "rape is rape, period." Guess the writer of this piece missed that. And concerning the issue of planned parenthood and the so-called "war on women", its not that most conservitives blindly wish to remove all access to women's health care. It's that most of us object to the government funding it through an organization that is the largest abortion provider in the country. I fully support the provision of contraception and affordable neccesary services to women, and providing them through government subsidy to underprivledged women. I feel that its our duty as a society to provide for the underpriviledged amongst us. I just think we DO NOT need to route these services through planned parenthood, the most prevalent abortion provider in our country. Defund Planned Parenthood and use that money to provide direct aide to women's health care. I'm SURE all of Planned Parenthood's supporters would step up with funding.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Aug 31, 2012, 02:46 PM EDT
Also, Donegal6, where in the USA is infanticide legal? You write about "a 6 mos baby which are killed everyday." Or do you mean a six-month fetus? If you mean third-trimester abortion, it is very, very rare, illegal almost everywhere except in life-saving emergencies. WHERE are you getting your "(mis)information"? You need to find more reliable sources. Ah, but Catholics just make up the science and statistics to fit their politics, right?
Report abuse
eiriamach | Aug 31, 2012, 02:38 PM EDT
BUT, Donegal6, only 30-40 percent of fertilized ova implant in a uterus. Unless a fertilized ovum implants, physicians cannot consider the woman pregnant because there is no way a "loose" fertilized ovum can develop into an embryo or fetus. Only Roman Catholics consider a fertilized ovum to be a pregnancy before implantation! For this reason, the 50% or greater loss presents a serious theological challenge to Roman Catholicism's positions on contraceptives, abortion, etc. Nature expels most fertilized ova from the womb. If they are ensouled from the instant of fertilization, why would the Creator set up nature to kill half or more of them? The older RC doctrine, that the fetus was "human" or had a soul from the time of quickening, made a heck of a lot more sense.
Report abuse
plynchhayes | Aug 31, 2012, 11:13 AM EDT
Re: the state laws requiring transvaginal U/S - why oh why are the various medical organizations not weighing in on this? Such unwarranted intrusion into medical practice, and not a peep from any of them! They certainly haven't been afraid to be politically active in the past!
Report abuse
51 Comments

Report abuse