Republican platform for American women: barefoot & pregnant?

[Marian the Librarian]

BY JOEL CONNELLY, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Published 10:09 p.m., Monday, February 20, 2012

Our nation's bizarre debate over contraception, prenatal tests and cancer screenings raises a question: Are Republicans in 2012 intent on running with the platform that American women should be kept barefoot and pregnant?

The theme on the GOP campaign trail seems to be cementing discrimination against gays and lesbians (using the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage) while rolling back the rights and access of women to birth control and abortion.

These culture warriors may be cruising for a devastating battlefield defeat in the November election. They deserve it.

Access to "the pill" in America seemed resolved, more than 45 years ago, with the Griswold v. Connecticult ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court defined for the first time an individual American's right of privacy and tossed out the Nutmeg State's ban on artificial contraception.

Roger and Jean Leed, Episcopalians, future Seattle residents and environmentalists, were plaintiffs in the Connecticut case. The Supremes' ruling was drafted by Justice William O. Douglas, son of Yakima and summertime resident of Goose Prairie in the Cascades.

In Congress, GOP Rep. George H.W. Bush of Texas argued that the federal government should fund birth control for poor women. "If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter," said the future President.

Now, in the 21st Century, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum is denouncing the pill.

"Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's O.K., contraception is O.K.," Santorum said last fall. "It's not O.K. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

We hear a lot of talk on the campaign trail about getting the federal government out of our lives, and of defending "religious freedom."

But the Republican presidential field seems intent on reinserting the federal government into the bedrooms of the nation. What's being tossed about are bans and obstacles to any behavior that the Christian right and Catholic bishops deem "counter to how things are supposed to be."

We've seen a succession of actions, and one dramatic reaction:

--The Susan B. Komen for the Cure Foundation tried to strip support to Planned Parenthood clinics, money used to pay for breast cancer examinations. Catholic bishops had urged defunding of Planned Parenthood. Komen backed down a day later after nationwide protests and an uprising of state chapters.

--The Catholic bishops, and GOP candidates, trumpeted as a threat to "religious liberty" a requirement that church-affiliated hospitals and universities include contraception coverage in health insurance plans. The Obama administration amended the policy, saying health insurers would pay for the coverage.

--Republicans on Capitol Hill took up the cry, with legislation designed to strip contraception coverage on a large scale. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, has a bill saying that any employer -- not just church affiliated institutions -- has the right to deny insurance coverage for his employees whenever it violates his "moral concerns."

--Santorum has launched an attack on coverage of prenatal exams for pregnant women, arguing "because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

Are these guys in touch with reality? Doubtful.

We had one Foster Friess, sugar daddy to Santorum's "SuperPAC," tell an incredulous Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC: "Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

On prenatal exams, Santorum declared: "That, too, is part of 'Obamacare,' another hidden message as to what President Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern out country."

"Elites?" Doesn't this Washington, D.C., politician realize that the Planned Parenthood clinics he would defund are a major source -- THE major source -- of access to health care for millions of America's poor women?

The policies advocated by Santorum, Newt Gingrich -- and pander bear Mitt Romney -- would deny contraceptive coverage and deny pre-natal care to women unable to pay.

What's surreal, too, is what's defined as a sin. Past actions of compassion and sense are condemned.

In 2005, Romney required Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide rape victims with emergency contraception. Listen to Gingrich: "The fact is Gov. Romney insisted that Catholic hospitals give out abortion pills against their religious belief when he was governor."

Washington, D.C., is slow to wake up. A House committee chairman, Rep. Daryll Issa, R-Calif., fielded an all-male panel for a hearing on contraception coverage last week. Our "enlightened" TV networks, on their Sunday talk shows, produced an all-male lineup of guests to talk about these issues.

But the Komen reaction may be a clue. Women are not going to stand for this ideological agenda. Two national polls showed two-thirds of Catholic women support the Obama administration's position on contraception coverage in health plans.

As Sen. Patty Murray put it in a Senate floor speech last week: "Contraceptive coverage shouldn't be a controversial issue. It's supported by the vast majority of Americans who understand how important it is for women and families.

"But Republicans have made clear from the start that this isn't about what's best for women, men and their family planning decisions.

"This is about their political calculations. This is about their constituency. And it's about their continued push to do whatever it takes to push their extreme agenda."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly ... z1n4uMPm4V

[debrand]

I don't really understand what is happening to the Republican party. In order to win, they should be moving toward the center. Romney really should be the logical Republican contender. That is not what has happened. It's as if the party has been hijacked by people who want the Democrates to win.

[Kitty]

I don't really understand what is happening to the Republican party. In order to win, they should be moving toward the center. Romney really should be the logical Republican contender. That is not what has happened. It's as if the party has been hijacked by people who want the Democrates to win.

I'm starting to wonder if that really is what's happening.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm starting to wonder if that really is what's happening.

Me too! Something's definitely up here.

[ADoyle90815]

Me too! Something's definitely up here.

I completely agree, if the Republican party wanted their nominee to win, there would be more moderate candidates running. There was something on Facebook recently that said, "This person is definitely voting for Obama, because these guys are nuts."

[Witsec7]

Some of the redneck republican IFBs I post with down 'Bammy way are now gonna vote for Obama :shock: We're talking birther racists.

[Guest Anonymous]

Some of the redneck republican IFBs I post with down 'Bammy way are now gonna vote for Obama :shock: We're talking birther racists.

Without a doubt, I can see AL going Obama. Most are scratching their heads at the shell of what used to be the Republican party.

[Frumpalicious]

No, of course not! Like Michelle Bachmann says in this article on CNN. (Not breaking link, I don't think CNN will mind the traffic: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/19/bachmann-gop-is-extremely-pro-women)

Former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Sunday railed against critics who say the recent birth control controversy reflects a Republican Party that holds suppressive views toward women.

“There is no anti-women move whatsoever. The Republican Party is extremely pro-women,†Bachmann said on CNN’s “State of the Union.†“What we saw was President Obama's signature piece of legislation, which is ‘Obamacare,’ demonstrated 3-D.â€

/sarcasm

[kb2]

I think that the good Republican candidates are waiting this election out because they didn't think they had a good chance of winning this time, so all we're seeing are the oblivious idiots in the party who will try to win no matter what the polls say. Oblivious to the polls, oblivious to what year it is, oblivious to the freedom people want to have to live their own lives...

[BravaAmica]

I think that the good Republican candidates are waiting this election out because they didn't think they had a good chance of winning this time, so all we're seeing are the oblivious idiots in the party who will try to win no matter what the polls say. Oblivious to the polls, oblivious to what year it is, oblivious to the freedom people want to have to live their own lives...

I also wonder if those same candidates are watching the shit storm the religious right is raining down on the Republican party. And then they can clean house and kick them out.

[Guest Anonymous]

No, of course not! Like Michelle Bachmann says in this article on CNN. (Not breaking link, I don't think CNN will mind the traffic: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/19/bachmann-gop-is-extremely-pro-women)

Former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Sunday railed against critics who say the recent birth control controversy reflects a Republican Party that holds suppressive views toward women.

“There is no anti-women move whatsoever. The Republican Party is extremely pro-women,†Bachmann said on CNN’s “State of the Union.†“What we saw was President Obama's signature piece of legislation, which is ‘Obamacare,’ demonstrated 3-D.â€

/sarcasm

Wait...what? Can this woman even read? The writing is clearly on the wall!

[Witsec7]

I think that the good Republican candidates are waiting this election out because they didn't think they had a good chance of winning this time, so all we're seeing are the oblivious idiots in the party who will try to win no matter what the polls say. Oblivious to the polls, oblivious to what year it is, oblivious to the freedom people want to have to live their own lives...

Who are these good Republican candidates? Some states are still in the air on how they will assign delegates. This really looks like its going to be a nomination settled at the convention and not at the caucuses, unless something crazy happens super tuesday. And the crazy I think is gonna happen super tuesday is Santorum getting the win.

[Frumpalicious]

Wait...what? Can this woman even read? The writing is clearly on the wall!

No, no, no, you clearly misunderstood the republican party's stance on things.

They are pro-women...as long as they: are barefoot and pregnant, have a pack of well-trained children, have a mile-long list of chores and "godly, wifely duties" completed before supper, are well-dressed, are good-looking, and are sex-crazed nymphomaniacs ready to receive the Holiest of Holy Sperm that their godly, dick-wielding husbands gift unto their womb. Did I miss anything?

Edited for English. I promise I can spell. :P

[doubtingkimmy]

As a Pennsylvanian who worked my tail off towards getting Santorum's last re-election bid defeated, I am truly dumbfounded as to how this total embarrassment of a human being (if in fact he is one, and not some strange alien pod-person from planet Patriarchy) has managed to crawl his way back onto the national political stage.

I have only two theories to possibly explain this matter. The first is that the Republican party has worked so hard for so long to court the far-right religious vote, that only now that they finally have it sewn up are they bothering to see what their endless concessions and pandering to these extremists truly means to the future of their party. Rather than a large block of easily controlled and satisfied sheeple, the emboldened inmates have taken over the asylum and are now demanding more, more, more of their former old-line, big business Republican handlers. The Republican old guard have lost control and can only stand aside aghast as the momentum carries their most extreme elements of their party much farther down the rabbit hole than was ever intended or even imagined.

The second is that the Republicans took a good look at the issues facing our economy and country, and decided to sit this one out. It was clear to me in the 2008 election that McCain/Palin were no more than sacrificial lambs thrown out there. The Republican establishment knew that the economy was so fucked that it would take far more than 4 years to turn it around, and they would rather use that time distancing themselves from the debacle that was the G.W. Bush presidency while sitting back and laying the blame on the Democratic administration for not magically fixing all the problems in four years. I think that we are seeing the same thing in 2012. Otherwise why keep Republican darlings such as Christie, or even God-forbid, Jeb Bush, out of the race?

[Katiebug]

I don't really understand what is happening to the Republican party. In order to win, they should be moving toward the center. Romney really should be the logical Republican contender. That is not what has happened. It's as if the party has been hijacked by people who want the Democrates to win.

I heard a bit on NPR yesterday about how right now the GOP candidates are going after their own base in order to get the nomination, which at the moment are social conservatives and the religious right. The fact that Romney (and Huntsman, before he dropped out) is a moderate is actually potentially hurting his candidacy. It's not the general election, it's primaries and caucuses of the GOP and they're trying to get the votes of people who, by and large, are social conservatives. There are plenty of folks in the Republican base who would very much like for women to return to the 1950s ideal of a housewife at home! They have no issue with traditional gender roles and think families would be better off if we all read the Bible as a literal document and had more babies. Hell, some of them think that it would solve the unemployment situation because currently-unemployed men would take women's places in the workforce. :roll:

By all accounts if he got the nomination Santorum would have to tone down his rhetoric substantially and play up the "I hate birth control for me but it's fine for the rest of you unwashed heathens" side. Romney, being much more moderate, wouldn't have to do as much backpedaling when the general election rolls around. If the GOP voters were smart, they'd recognize that Romney is the best chance they have in the general election and Santorum or Gingrich would be crushed by Obama once the unaffiliated moderates vote.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I find the whole tenor of the Republican Party to be positively frightening. The onholy alliance between the "small government" Republicans and the "religious conservative" Republicans is the stuff from which crazy dictators are made. Fortunately, so far they have only come up with a bunch of dictator wannabes du jour. I hope the folks who think this is a passing phase because Obama can't be beat the cycle are correct. The thing is that Obama has been pretty mediocre. The radical right has certainly tied his hands, but i have to believe that a person like Clinton (either one) could have finessed these whackadoos quite a bit better.

Whenever large groups of people engage in a mobthink movement with obvious glaring contradictions, bad things have happenend. Why do these idealogues not see that "small government" and "Christian Nation" cannot go together? It is a legitimate point of view to want a small government where people are free to think for themselves and make their own way without government interference. In this worldview, a person accepts that the government will not be there to cantch them if they fall. The religious point of view is highly invasive. They want to mandate the beliefs of the populace. They want to make moral and personal decisions for citizens. They want people who are brown to accept that being brown is not as good at being pink. However, if you pretend to be pink (and don't try to do something stupid, like become president), we will lit you play in the sandbox. They want people who have vaginas to get out of the sandbox and go home to make the pink guys and the "acceptable" brown guys some lunch. They want people who do not believe in deity their way to get out of the sandbox. (They have the option of pretending, but they must be convincing). They want people who are attracted to other people who have the same trouser equipment to stay out of the sandbox. (These people also have the option to pretend, but must be convincing.) HOW IS THAT SMALL GOVERNMENT?

My daughter thinks that this is just standard rhetoric to galvanize the factions and get them out to vote.

I don't think this is standard. McCarthyism is not standard. If you trace some of the roots of this new social movment, you will see there is a connection between the current Tea Party movment and the original McCarthy people. Let's start with RJ Rushdooney. Doug Phillips is the son of Howard Phillips, a man who came from the Nixon Whitehouse. Nixon won hos election using his "Southern Strategy". This was his observation that Southern Democrats had strong ideology that he could fit into his campaign. Basically, he tapped into the fear of communists and brown people. This came right out of the McCarthy playbook.

Finally, the bottom line is racism and sexism. It always is. For many generations white male Christians have been the unquestioned power brokers in this world. And now other groups are getting seated at that table. So many of these people are at the seats of power that white Christian males may not always be in the majority. What were are seeing is the last stand of the power elite as we know it. And they are going to do whatever they can to hold that power. It is going to be a dangerous time to be human.

[mirele]

I also wonder if those same candidates are watching the shit storm the religious right is raining down on the Republican party. And then they can clean house and kick them out.

This. I think there are some very frustrated Republicans who are sitting this one out, letting the right wing run rampant and then, when their candidate loses, being able to say in the run up to 2016, "we went that way last time, it obviously didn't work." My response: "Good luck with that, you are talking to some very determined people."

My boyfriend believes we're going to get stuck with a religious right nutter in 2016. I'm trying to talk him into emigrating if this becomes a reality.

[ZTwist]

The second is that the Republicans took a good look at the issues facing our economy and country, and decided to sit this one out. It was clear to me in the 2008 election that McCain/Palin were no more than sacrificial lambs thrown out there. The Republican establishment knew that the economy was so fucked that it would take far more than 4 years to turn it around, and they would rather use that time distancing themselves from the debacle that was the G.W. Bush presidency while sitting back and laying the blame on the Democratic administration for not magically fixing all the problems in four years. I think that we are seeing the same thing in 2012. Otherwise why keep Republican darlings such as Christie, or even God-forbid, Jeb Bush, out of the race?

I live in PA too, I think it's this one. They're letting the crazies run this one and then will clean house.

But I'm wondering why Christie said he'd veto the same-gender marriage bill; it seems like pandering to the extreme right, since NJ is usually fairly progressive. If he's looking at 2016, wouldn't he stay more to the center? Could he sweep in late to "save" the election? I hope I'm just being paranoid.

[reds]

Wait...what? Can this woman even read? The writing is clearly on the wall!

]

:shock: Who says we can read? I can't read, I am a Woman. :shifty:

[smores]

I thought Republicans were supposed to be for less government. I fail to see how heavily regulating each uterus falls under that notion. All the campaign promises made by Rick Santorum and the like just boggle the mind.

[Austin]

I have only two theories to possibly explain this matter. The first is that the Republican party has worked so hard for so long to court the far-right religious vote, that only now that they finally have it sewn up are they bothering to see what their endless concessions and pandering to these extremists truly means to the future of their party. Rather than a large block of easily controlled and satisfied sheeple, the emboldened inmates have taken over the asylum and are now demanding more, more, more of their former old-line, big business Republican handlers. The Republican old guard have lost control and can only stand aside aghast as the momentum carries their most extreme elements of their party much farther down the rabbit hole than was ever intended or even imagined.

This is pretty much how I see it. The GOP has pushed moderate, thinking republicans to the edges and the margins. The "big tent" has been shrinking for years, and is now inhabited and controlled by the most extreme. Now the GOP is stuck with dancing with them that brung 'em, and those are the religious right and the tea partiers. They've backed themselves into a very inconvenient corner which narrows the path to the presidency considerably. A candidate cannot win the nomination without pandering to the extremes, but then will be unable to walk back those extreme positions during a general election to win the election. There are not enough conservatives to propel their candidate to victory, and since moderates and independents will have been so turned off during the primary season, they can't pull enough of them in to win.

The chattering class of the GOP is all atwitter about this, but the inmates running the asylum don't care one bit about the conventional wisdom they're dishing up. They're mad, goddammit, and reason and logic escapes them.

[valsa]

I thought Republicans were supposed to be for less government. I fail to see how heavily regulating each uterus falls under that notion. All the campaign promises made by Rick Santorum and the like just boggle the mind.

No, they're for less government for people. But silly, women aren't people. They just think they are.

[Austin]

But I'm wondering why Christie said he'd veto the same-gender marriage bill; it seems like pandering to the extreme right, since NJ is usually fairly progressive. If he's looking at 2016, wouldn't he stay more to the center? Could he sweep in late to "save" the election? I hope I'm just being paranoid.

Christie wants to run for president and he knows if he signs gay marriage into law, that will not be possible. He can't win the nomination without the bigots who oppose same sex marriage.

[Bookworm]

Finally, the bottom line is racism and sexism. It always is. For many generations white male Christians have been the unquestioned power brokers in this world. And now other groups are getting seated at that table. So many of these people are at the seats of power that white Christian males may not always be in the majority. What were are seeing is the last stand of the power elite as we know it. And they are going to do whatever they can to hold that power. It is going to be a dangerous time to be human.

Exactly. They are losing their power and they know it and are lashing out, making it very unpleasant for everyone.

[smores]

No, they're for less government for people. But silly, women aren't people. They just think they are.

Oh, I get it now!

Fetus = person

Babies/children/adults = person, unless female or illegal immigrant