Lord of the PLUBs: Attack of the Fetus FanaticsPosted: March 27, 2011
The Flaming Ass of the Republican Religious Right, “The Crack” is always watching your uterus…ever on the lookout for the fetus it desires to wield as the ultimate power against women and girls. No Man can kill the evil that is inherent in the fetus fanatic. He will not be stopped until his quest for dominion over every uterus in Middle Earth has been achieved. It is no longer the age of women, the time of the PLUB has come.
The Ass commands that all with a uterus must obey his shrieking calls of Pro-Life. Like hemorrhoids from deep within the smoldering lava of Mount GOP, The Crack’s words strike out at any former fetus that is a woman or girl. Hot turds of hypocrisy spew from the Flaming Ass as he conducts his evil assault on Woman’s Rights and Reproductive Health.
No offense to J.R.R. Tolkien, but this war against women that is being waged by PLUB (Pro-Life-Until-Birth) Republicans is just as threatening to the female race as “The Ring” was to the inhabitants of Middle Earth. Instead of using their new-found power in Washington DC and State Houses to promote job growth and improve the failed economy, Republicans are trampling over the American Uteri. But that is not all they, the GOP, are destroying. These PLUBs assholes want to stop any form of affordable reproduction and general healthcare available to women and girls of limited means. Lets face it, the rich will always have their abortions available to them on a silver platter. The outright abuse of the poor and working class female is so dangerous. I just cannot understand why so few elected Democrats are not standing up to these bastards.
Why aren’t there more protests from the US Citizenry?
Why is there no “Beacons” being lit to alert the masses of our need for battle ready advocates for women’s issues?
I am furious at the steps the GOP is taking to infringe on my Rights to be an adult and make a decision on my own with the “help” and “bullying” of Pro-Life consultants and sonograms and waiting periods. These are the same fucked up people who fight for their own right to choose a damn lightbulb. They fight for no gun control…they detest waiting periods to buy automatic weapons, but goddamn the woman who wants to execute her rights, her human rights, to the private and personal choice allowed to her. Health choices that men are now forcing the women to make. That is what it comes down to. This is not a cause for improved women’s health, this is a calculated plan to oppress women and make them slaves to the Religious Right.
Don’t Tread On Me!
Don’t attack my rights as a woman!
Don’t question my capable decisions!
Don’t take away my right to reproductive healthcare and contraception that Planned Parenthood provides!
Don’t mess with my uterus!
And now some articles and updates to the monstrosity that is the Religious Right…follow me after the fold!
When Republicans profited from the miserable economy to sweep up huge wins in last fall’s election, most political watchers figured they knew what was coming: budget cuts, privatization of more government functions, and tax cuts for the wealthy. The push to dismantle public sector unions has been a bit of a surprise, but not a jarring one.
But what seems to have thrown everyone — save for a handful of embittered and neglected pro-choice activists — for a loop is the way Republican lawmakers at both the national and state levels have focused so intently on the uteruses of America. Republicans appear to believe that the women of America have wildly mismanaged these uteruses in the four decades since the Supreme Court gave them control over them — and now that Republicans have even a little bit of power, they’re going to bring this reign of female tyranny over uteruses to an end.
After all, the Republican House speaker, John Boehner, has identified limiting women’s access to abortion and contraception as a “top priority” — this with the economy is in tatters and the world in turmoil. Boehner’s and the GOP’s abortion fixation raises an obvious question: Why now, when there are so many other pressing issues at stake?
There isn’t just one explanation. The assault on reproductive rights is intensifying now because of a convergence of several otherwise unrelated events that have created the perfect moment for the anti-choice movement to go for the kill.
The tactics vary: mandatory sonograms and anti-abortion counseling, sweeping limits on insurance coverage, bans on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. To abortion-rights activists, they add up to the biggest political threat since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide.
“It’s just this total onslaught,” said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state legislation for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization that supports abortion rights.
What’s different this year is not the raw number of anti-abortion bills, but the fact that many of the toughest, most substantive measures have a good chance of passage due to gains by conservative Republicans in last year’s legislative and gubernatorial elections. On Tuesday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed into law a bill that would impose a longest-in-the-nation waiting period of three days before women could have an abortion — and also require them to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.
Even committed abortion foes have long acknowledged the need for exceptions for cases of rape, incest, saving a mother’s life or ending a pregnancy when a seriously deformed fetus wasn’t expected to survive. They understood the implicit cruelty of demanding a girl impregnated by her abusive father, or a woman who knew she would lose the child, carry that pregnancy to term.
But in this punishing new territory of moral absolutism, the old rules of compassion are out. Now, politicians want to let the “values voters” who elected them know they’re sticking to the hard line rather than working through tough issues with independence, conscience and pragmatism. And if proving themselves means rewriting laws to hurt vulnerable people, let the chips fall where they may.
What the bill would do
Here is where they will fall in Iowa if a House Appropriations bill for human services, which has cleared one committee, becomes law. Low-income rape and incest victims who depend on state-paid health care would be forced to give birth to their abusers’ children. The state would not pay the $1,592 average cost for an abortion.
Most people on public assistance can’t readily cough up that much. So they’d give birth to children who would serve as lifelong connections to the attackers – and maybe not just through biology. What if a rapist, unconvicted, demanded an active role in the child’s life? The possibilities are horrifying.
A double standard
There is a fundamental and growing disconnect between the limits that conservative politicians seek to place on abortion rights and those they want to place on government. Every other conservative rallying cry these days is to limit government’s role, whether in championing home schooling, calling to repeal a government health plan, or even defending junk food in the name of personal choice. From banks to the environment to gun control, government is portrayed as the enemy, and deregulation is the mantra. Yet the Iowa House of Representatives has no fewer than six bills to restrict abortion rights. In forcing women to bear their rapists’ children, or give birth to babies who won’t survive, the ideologues would have government reach deep into women’s private lives. It would forbid them from making choices the U.S. Supreme Court has declared they must have.This bill takes control away from victims again, and robs poor women of rights those with higher incomes have. It’s wrong ethically, practically and every other way you look at it. It should go no farther.
Centrist senators don’t want to talk about Planned Parenthood – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room (Click the link for a summary of each Senator’s stance on Planned Parenthood.)
All Republican senators recently voted in favor of a House-passed appropriations bill, which includes the Planned Parenthood language sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). A few of them noted they didn’t agree with all of the amendments attached to the measure, which calls for $61 billion in cuts and failed to pass the in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week said the Planned Parenthood measure is a deal breaker, vowing that it won’t be included in the final House-Senate package.
On March 11, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) was the first GOP senator to publicly oppose cuts to Planned Parenthood.
“I believe Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those in need and disagree with their funding cuts in the bill. I ask you to consider these programs going forward to determine if there is room for allowing continued funding,” Murkowski wrote in a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and ranking member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).
In a statement earlier this week, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said, “I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
But days later, some are claiming Brown was referring to Title X family planning program, not Planned Parenthood specifically. The House-passed measure calls for eliminating funding for all of Title X, which does not pay for abortions. Title X last year was allocated $317 million, and $75 million of those funds went to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Meanwhile, many Democrats are keeping their positions close to the vest, including several up for reelection next year.
A rundown of centrist senators’ positions on Planned Parenthood follows:
WorldNetDaily wrote, “A U.S. Government Accountability Office report says Planned Parenthood Federation of America cannot find some $1.3 billion given to it by the federal government from 2002 through 2008.” We found other websites making similar claims.
The GAO never reported that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates couldn’t find $1.3 billion. It simply said that Planned Parenthood spent $657.1 million. The GAO also didn’t say that there was any sort sort of discrepancy or that money was missing, as the headline on WorldNetDaily’s news report said. The website’s conclusion was reached by looking at numbers not even mentioned in the GAO report.
In fact the statement conflates two different sets of numbers and is an extreme case of comparing apples to oranges, taking one number calculated by the GAO, and another calculated by adding numbers published in Planned Parenthood’s annual reports. The difference is what is claimed to be missing.
Planned Parenthood includes all federal, state and local money under the category “government grants and contracts” in its annual reports. The GAO only looked at direct federal funding and noted it was likely undercounting the amount Planned Parenthood receives.
The statement irresponsibly suggests misappropriation of federal funds without any evidence. That makes it not just false, but ridiculously so. As a result, we rate the statement Pants on Fire.
Scott Brown has been remarkably adept at keeping the faith with Republicans while pleasing his independent Massachusetts constituency, but he stretched the bounds of that cuteness with a defense of Planned Parenthood that, on second look, appeared neither to refer to Planned Parenthood at all.
California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is lambasting what she calls a Republican “vendetta” against Planned Parenthood, saying that efforts in the House Republicans’ proposed budget to entirely defund the organization will impact millions.
In California alone, hundreds of thousands of women, the Democratic Senator said, use the organization’s “life-saving” services — including cancer screenings, mammograms, day-to-day health care, OB-GYN services as well as contraception and family planning.
Boxer made the statements this week at a San Francisco press conference, where we asked Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific President and CEO Heather Estes about the controversial question of the organization’s providing of abortion services — raised repeatedly by Republican conservatives as a rationale in slashing its funding.
When the South Dakota legislature passed H.B. 1217, creating a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for an abortion and forcing women to undergo counseling at non-medical, faith-based crisis pregnancy centers, Governor Dennis Daugaard took his time before signing the bill into law. Why the wait? According to news reports, he wanted time to figure out how to cover the legal expenses in the inevitable law suits forcing the state to defend what most experts on both sides saw as an unconstitutional encroachment on a woman’s right to choose, as well as a possible violation of separation of church and state.
According to the governor, a “private donor” then pledged to provide funding to cover the costs of the legislation.
Signing the bill in private, Gov. Daugaard released a statement saying:
”I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”
The people not making good choices would be the legislators that passed the bill, and the governor who signed it into law under the promise that private funds would be available to defend the restrictions in court.
But there is a great deal of enthusiasm in the legislature around the bill, and its key sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt has offered to solicit donations for a defense fund in order to ensure the governor signed it. Also believed to be fundraising for its defense is Leslee Unruh, founder of Alpha Center, a spirited lobbyist for H.B. 1217 and a pregnancy help center owner whose group is already providing trainings in anticipation of the new mandate, scheduled to go into effect July 1st.
The primary worry for many in the legislature is that this isn’t the first time sponsors have offered to raise money for legal defense for anti-abortion bills, and pledges aren’t the same as actual dollars. Prior to March of 2011, the last donation to the “Life Protection Fund,” as it is called, was in October of 2006, bringing total donations to that fund just under $12,500. Interest on the money in the subsequent five years brought that to $14,000. Now the “flood” of money into the fund has brought it to just over $19,000.
Twenty grand isn’t going to get the defense team very far when it comes to litigation, and it’s going to stretch even thinner when it becomes apparent that those dollars are already spoken for. The state is still in the process of defending its last unconstitutional anti-abortion bill – the 2005 law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that abortion terminates “the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” that she has a relationship with her unborn child that is being terminated, and that “risk of suicide” is a medical side effect of abortion.
The 2005 law, which is still being heard in the 8th circuit, has currently run up $1.7 million just in attorney’s fees for Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota, according to one source in the South Dakota legislature who spoke to RH Reality Check. Defending the new bill (which essentially incorporates and supercedes the 2005 law) could remand the 2005 lawsuit, forcing the state to foot the bill for the entirety of Planned Parenthoods legal fees in the earlier case.
Across the country, dozens of bills are being introduced at the state level that would restrict women’s abortion rights. Democratic strategist Karen Finney weighs in. Please take a few minutes and watch the Video! Abortion or Power and Control?
And one last thing…take those Dilbert cartoons down from you computer screen at work! Dilbert Cartoonist Compares Women To Babies, Mentally Handicapped (I never liked his stuff anyway.)
Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind the Dilbert office cartoon, has become well known around the blogging world for his rabid right wing diatribes on his blog. In fact, he often wears his flame-throwing as a badge of pride.
So when he decides to delete a post, you know it’s pretty bad news.
Yet that’s just what he did with a blog post that was a “request” post by advocates of Men’s Rights — a group that believes that men are getting the short end of the stick in today’s society.
Adams allegedly replied to their complaints by telling them that yes, women do get treated better, but he has no interest in trying to make things equal, comparing women to babies and the “mentally handicapped.”
Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:
Get over it, you bunch of pussies.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar.
Jeff Fecke at Blog of the Moderate Left explains what you would think would need no explanation — why this is such a demeaning argument to both sexes.
First off, it’s obviously about as misogynistic an argument as one can muster for…well, anything. Women should be treated like children, or like the mentally handicapped. Because they’re not rational beings. And if you just humor them when they complain about their silly little “wage gap” or “rape” or “inability to secure safe and legal health care,” well, then you might get laid! (I know, his metaphor is pretty obscure, but that’s what it meant, if you couldn’t figure it out with your childish lady brains.)
But as deeply offensive and awful as the argument is toward women, it is nearly as evil toward men. I don’t like the MRAs, and I think they’re wrong about just about everything. But telling them, “Hey, shut up and you can bang chicks” is patently offensive. Believe it or not, men have more interests than sex. Really! It’s true! And saying that all male concerns should vanish in service to the larger focus of gettin’ some — well, as usual, nobody hates men as much as an anti-feminist.
Adams defends his post over at Feministe:
In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.
I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.
You can see that the comments about the piece were little more than name-calling. When confronted with that sort of reaction, would it be wiser to treat the name-callers as you might treat respected professors with opinions worthy of consideration, or should you treat the name-callers as you would angry children, by not debating and not taking it personally?
You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.
So, does everyone agree with Adams? Do men get treated worse than women? And is arguing with women as useful as arguing with a four year old or punching a mentally handicapped person?
I think one thing we can all agree on is Adams never should have written the post in the first place. On that, I think even he would agree.
In my opinion, I don’t think Adams wishes he never wrote it…he just wishes that he did not get called out about it.
So what do you all think? Let us get talking about what we can do to build our own army of good pro-choice, women’s rights and reproductive health supporters to fight that “Flaming Ass of Republican Religious Right.”