Friday, July 27, 2012

An Open Letter To The Women Of The GOP From A Liberal Woman About The War On Women


***WARNING: This post contains very, very strong language.


THE WAR ON WOMEN


The majority of GOP women say The War On Women is a liberal distraction. It isn’t real. They like to paint liberals as self-admitted whiny victims and maintain this “war” against us is a manufactured one. I will illustrate how this war is real and debunk the myth that liberal women look the other way when liberal men call any woman a name.

Rush Limbaugh launched a nine-hour attack on Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut and a prostitute and demanded to see her sex video. He lied and said she stood before Congress and complained that she was having so much sex she could no longer afford birth control and wanted it to be free.

The truth is that Ms. Fluke stood before Congress and addressed them politely and eloquently, and made the case that birth control should be available on all insurance plans. She made the point that it isn’t available through her current insurance provider. Rush Limbaugh LIED and passed it off as news, fully expecting his audience to believe what he was saying was truth. Not a joke or satire.


When GOP women talk about Limbaugh, they are quick to call out liberal women and say that we have said nothing about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a cunt. Or David Letterman referring to Sarah Palin as slutty and (making a bad, bad joke) that one of the Palin daughters was "knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez" at a Yankee game. Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” And last, Larry Flynt’s publication, Hustler, created the depiction of conservative, S.E. Cupp, in a mock-up photo to look as if she had a penis in her mouth.


GOP women – you are dead wrong when you declare liberal women have said nothing. I have. You can read what I said about all of it in this post. Additionally, I have tweeted to Maher and Schultz, expressing my disappointment with their choice of words.


There is a glaring difference though. These men who painted derogatory pictures of women by using shaming words were name-calling. Unlike Limbaugh, they did not spend nine hours lying about what any of these women did. There is a difference. Limbaugh has an audience that believes what he says is news and accepts it as truth. Letterman and Maher are comedians and everyone understands that they are not passing themselves off as newscasters.

That said, I don’t believe men should ever refer to any woman, no matter her political affiliation, as a cunt or a slut. These words are shameful and specifically geared toward taking away a woman’s credibility because of her gender. I appreciate the right to free speech but personally, I would prefer men, especially smart, prominent men, to refrain from using that language when referring to women. Why? Because it does no one any good.

White men, so far, have had a free pass on this kind of shaming epithet. If you wish to insult a white man, what do you call him? An asshole, a douchebag, a motherfucker? Of course there’s plenty more but none of these words hold the same, specific, incendiary connotation. Conversely, if you wish to use words to shame other groups, well, they exist and here are a few:

African-Americans – Nigger, Coon
Mexicans – Wetback, Beaner
Gay men - Faggot
Jews – Hymie, Heeb, Kike
Women – Slut, Cunt

These words are used only for shame and it’s wrong for anyone to refer to another individual this way. So your argument that liberal women stay silent about liberal men calling women names is a crock and let’s please move on to what the real issue is.


As a woman who champions women’s rights—including the women of the GOP—I will continue to do what I can with the platform I have to make sure we are all treated fairly.

Here are some questions I pose to conservative women:

Do you believe you should make the same money as your male counterpart is paid for doing the same job? If so, what do you have to say about the fact that every single Senate Republican blocked the Equal Pay Act? Seriously, you’re okay with that? If you are, why? What if your daughter gets a job in a company that pays more to a man doing the same work as she does? Do you think that’s fair? Did you know that when a woman makes less over her lifetime, she also sees less in her Social Security checks when she retires? Is that okay with you? And if so, why?


Do you think that pharmacists should have the right to deny you birth control based on their personal opinions? In Kansas, pharmacists have that right.


How many of you conservative women are single moms? Would you want the government to penalize you, calling your marital status a “contributing factor to child abuse and neglect?” Well, Republican Senator Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin introduced a bill that would criminalize single mothers. Do you agree with this? If you do, I’d like to hear why.


Now here’s one that may incite some anger but Ladies of the GOP who identify yourself as pro-life, please, please tell me how this can be? In Arizona, a doctor has the legal right to withhold life-threatening medical information from a pregnant woman, in case she may—may—be considering an abortion. So, basically she may DIE. The fetus may also DIE and the doctor doesn’t have to tell her in case she MAY want an abortion. Now I get that you are against abortion. But how can you be against it so much that you’d be willing to let a woman and/or her baby DIE in the name of a pro-life agenda? Can you understand that this is hypocrisy? How do you justify that? I would really like to know.

Every single one of these bills/laws was introduced by a Republican.

I would like to end this with an example.

A conservative, 35 year-old, married, pregnant woman with three children under the age of five finds out there is an 90% risk of her dying if she follows through with her pregnancy. If she dies, her unborn fetus would too. Her family would be without a mother. The father would be left to take over the responsibilities of both parents while grieving and explaining to his children that it was better that mommy died as a result of a dangerous pregnancy rather than have a safe, legal abortion and live. What would you do in this situation? What would you want your daughter to do in this situation? I can tell you right now, Rick Santorum’s wife who was faced with a similar problem, chose to induce labor, knowing the baby would die. She did not technically have an abortion. Here's an interesting point that Jezebel makes: "Santorum's even against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or even if the woman carrying the fetus risked death doing so. Karen Santorum would have died if the fetus were not removed, and labor was induced and not halted knowing that the fetus would not survive. How is this not technically "abortion?" In Santorum's world, it would probably qualify as infanticide."

Of course, once it was over, she and her husband wanted to make safe, legal abortions illegal, even when the mother and/or the baby are facing death.  You can also read this article in examiner.com about the choice the Santorums made. "Numerous sources report Santorum’s wife Karen had a second trimester abortion in October 1996. The Santorum’s, however, don’t like to describe it as an abortion. Instead, they call it a medically induced miscarriage. Yet for many, this is a distinction without a difference."

I am leaving the comments open and anyone may post a reply. I expect some angry responses, even some hate—all of which I will leave for everyone to see. If you choose to rebut this post with a hateful response, your true colors will be on display. I will not argue with replies that do not directly answer the questions I posed. I ask these questions because I don’t understand how you can deny that all women in this country are under attack. Our rights are at stake and I promise to do what I can to help change that. Not just for liberal women but for ALL women.

Thank you for reading and I leave you with a great song from two very strong, beautiful women:

Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves
“Now this is a song to celebrate the conscious liberation of the female state
Mothers, daughters and their daughters too
Woman to woman we're singing with you
The inferior sex has got a new exterior
We got doctors, lawyers (Yes we do), politicians too.”

112 comments:

  1. You put into words what I have been wanting to say for months! Excellent Kimberly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is amazing that in 2012 we are still defending our rights. Keep up the fight! We in East Harlem, New York City support you! Thank you very much!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Right Wing Nut Jobs' "do as I say, not as I do" attitude is infuriating. Why is it right for Mrs. Santorum, but not right for Ms. America?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for saying what many of us feel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wonderful piece. Thank you so much for being brave enough to say some of the "no-no" things that may "offend" someone. We all truly appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have never in my life felt so besieged and threatened than now. No war on women???? Conservatives say liberals are manufacturing this "so-called" war on women as a distraction. Complete and total bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. YES! I would also like to know their excuses for believing such things. Do they truly think that their daughters are less than their sons? That if a woman goes to college and earns a degree she is still somewhat less than her male counterparts? The country deserves an answer from these women!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im wondering if these republican women lawmakers would agree to accept 3/4 the pay as their male counterparts, afterall they did vote against the fair pay act?

      Delete
  8. As a proudly liberal, single father with three sons you lost me when you started complaining about "white men", Kimberly. Besides the insults you ignore like cracker, honkey and redneck, painting us all with the same brush (ie "The Man") is exactly the behavior you decry against others.

    That kind of hypocrisy only weakens your otherwise excellent argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your input!!! I do get your point. But I ask this....If someone/anyone called Mitch McConnell or John Boehner a cracker, honkey or redneck, do you think either of these men would be shamed?
      I doubt it. I realize these two men do not equal the whole group. There is no denying, white men have the edge on everyone and that is the point.

      I love men. I have supportive, good men in my life, as do may liberal women who are angry at what's happening. Please make no mistake that we hate men or wish to demean them. I stand by what I wrote and I do appreciate your feedback. ~K

      Delete
    2. You mistakenly equate white men with the overlapping subset of rich men. Watching my sons struggle for jobs and college admission (where males are the minority), being laid off and unable to pay the mortgage, it's frankly insulting to be lumped in with plutocrats like Boehner.

      If we have the edge, it's news to us.

      Delete
    3. Honkey, redneck and cracker can also be applied to women and gays.

      My point is that there is no epithet that is meant to discredit a white man for being a white man. I do not believe there should be one...for any group.

      Women earn approx. 70 cents on the dollar in comparison to men for salaried and hourly positions in many cases.

      Your sons are not the only ones hurting in this economy. I'm sorry they are, but the fact they are, doesn't negate what I'm saying about epithets.

      Delete
    4. I am a white female who is about to graduate from college. It took me three times to get into the University that I wanted, I was denied because of I am a women trying to go into a male profession. their statistics told them that i was less likely to succeed in their school so they denied me even though i have over a 3.0 which is higher than the majority of student's grades that were applying. Now that I'm graduating into a male field I'm looking at a future where getting a job is really none existent for women in my field. No offence to ur sons but i think i should have the same right to get a job as they do and as of right now i dont... even if they are less qualified than i am they are more likely to get a job and that to me is unfair. not to mention if i were to get a job i would be paid 30% less than a man doing the same thing. to which i dont understand y. i had to pay the same school loans and i had to get the same grades so why am i making less?
      anyways, am just saying; a white male and i'm going to add christian, has a better chance at becoming and doing what they want because they dont have the same stigmas as say a black man or an Hispanic women... It is just how it is it is not to be mean it is just how our world is and I believe that it needs to change
      also I grew up in the country and i have been called a redneck and a cracker so those names are not determined on gender more of where u were raised and what color u are and arent that bad...
      I would also like to point out that douche bag and motherfucker have a negative connotation to women because of what they mean and so does SOB so i would say asshole is the only thing not referring to a women in any negative way... if you think of one plz write it because i feel like im having a brain fart

      Delete
    5. You have brought up one of my rants. Almost all insults that men use at/against each other are derogatory towards women. My husband and I have actually discussed this. :-) We did come up with some other ones: Faggot/fag/queer (obviously derogatory against homosexuals) and Dick/prick/peckerhead. Somebody that I grew up with had an unfortunate nickname, Smagma. I don't think any female called him that. A teacher tried to get them to stop by explaining what it was. Obviously they knew what it was.

      Delete
    6. Not to sidestep the general point of your argument, but as a human about to graduate from college in a presumably elite field of study, your grammar and CAPITALIZATION are appalling. You may want to rethink 'ur' method of presenting your qualifications before blaming your gender alone on 'your' inability to get a job...

      Delete
    7. Ah, an ad hominem tactic to avoid her point. Nicely done. She's right, there are many professions where your sex is as or more important than your actual qualifications. That's not right, and it's something that needs to change.

      Delete
  9. Kimberley, can you provide the proof/source for your statement that Rick Santorum's wife had an abortion? Were you serious in that statement? I applaud your words and agree. I have worked long and hard as an advocate for women and hope that more young women will wake up in this critical election year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joy, thank you for pointing this out and I will make a correction. Hers's an excerpt from an article about Santorum's wife and what happened: "Santorum's even against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or even if the woman carrying the fetus risked death doing so. Karen Santorum would have died if the fetus were not removed, and labor was induced and not halted knowing that the fetus would not survive. How is this not technically "abortion?" In Santorum's world, it would probably qualify as infanticide."

      Here's the entire article:
      http://jezebel.com/5873158/rick-santorums-anti+abortion-stance-would-have-killed-his-own-wife

      Delete
    2. I think he wrote about it in his book "It Takes A Family".

      Delete
    3. "Abortion Weirdness

      Normally I would not even talk about the personal pain or experience someone has gone through with an issue like this. Rick Santorum, however, has missed no opportunity to tell the tale of his wife's lost pregnancy, over and over, as a mark of their personal commitment to the pro-life cause, and the reality is much stranger and more disturbing than that.

      (We'll ignore for now the fact that Santorum thinks babies conceived during rape are gifts from God.)

      In 1996, Santorum's wife Karen was pregnant, and doctors told her that the fetus had a fatal defect and would, at best, survive only a short time outside the womb. Many couples would choose to end that pregnancy, to terminate it, to abort it, depending on your perspective. They chose to soldier on, and that's great.

      Then Karen developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever of 105 degrees. The vast majority of couples would have ended the pregnancy to save the mother's life. But that would have been political suicide in pro-life circles, and the Santorums did everything possible deliver the baby. Finally, they induced labor using pitocin, even though the fetus was 20 weeks old. No baby has ever survived birth at 20 weeks. Ever. So doing so is very close to an abortion using indirect means. Still, 2 or three babies (in history) have survived at 21 weeks and a few days, so why not give it a chance? Again, fair enough.

      The baby was delivered and died very quickly. A terrible tragedy. Still fine. It's what the Santorums did next that is strange. They would not let the body go to the morgue. Instead, they slept that night in the hospital with the corpse between them, then took it home and had their children hold and cuddle the cold, dead, day-old body of their sibling, who they named Gabriel. Next, Karen wrote a best-selling book, "Letters to Gabriel," and the couple has missed no chance since then to brag about this as their commitment to the pro-life cause.

      I know, you're thinking "But they're just very committed, pro-life people, maybe you can't understand their tragedy but how can you criticize them for it?" Aside from the ickiness of using this sad event for political gain, there is this: Karen dated, and lived with Tom Allen, an ob-gyn who preformed abortions, for six years until right before she hooked up with Rick Santorum. She travelled the world with him, on his dime. The weirdest thing of all? Not that he was 40 years older than her. (He's still alive, in fact, at 92.) No, the weirdest thing is that her 6-year live-in lover was the doctor who delivered her as a baby. --"
      http://www.realchange.org/santorum.htm
      Abortion Weirdness Sources --

      The Believer, By MICHAEL SOKOLOVE, New York Times Magazine, May 22, 2005

      Before Karen Met Rick, by Nancy Hass, Newsweek, Jan 16, 2012

      Delete
  10. Kimberely, Thank you so much for this article!! Looking forward to seeing you on the 18th! Wendy (We Are Woman)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kimberly: your eloquence inspires me. However, there is one insult that is hurled at white men: calling them "girls." Apparently being female is the ultimate insult. Heather

    ReplyDelete
  12. In my limited/humble opinion, I think Kimberley overlooks that many/most 'GOP' women are very religious and actually believe that they are less than men, that their place is at home, that sexy women are asking for it, that thinking for themselves is not something they strive for and women such as Kimberley should be put in their place. And others are maybe just a bit less for walking one step behind but still not aligned with any beliefs such as those offered by Kimberley and her 'ilk'.
    Breaking with that belief system is not obtained from a rationally debated encounter. These encounters are really to serve as a way to organize, energize and focus people who are already opposed to the GOP.
    I guess I am asking, after the bat-shit crazy responses are delivered from the women of the GOP (and those responses will not be here, but at GOP friendly forums), what is your(our) next move? How do we effect positive (to us) change. Because the (wo)men of the GOP are asking themselves how they can change people like you? And if change isn't possible, how can they stop you.

    Any decision to change ones long held beliefs is an emotional, running scared, and as frightening as anything they can think about doing, kind of thing. Logic has its place but just like passing a law does not end racism, there needs to be a gut wrenching struggle before change even begins.
    I think the GOP strategy of 'getting them while they are young' is the most effective. That is why they are on the school boards and in positions of deciding educational goals and the textbooks to be used. Arguing with entrenched true believers (like Kimberley) is usually a waste of time. I think focusing on school age and college age women will be most productive. And fighting vigorously against any and all attempts to privatize schools, expand home schooling, acceptance of degrees from high schools and colleges that teach against science, discourage open debates, teach reliance on faith as supreme in all matters, and so on. Being elected to school boards sounds dreadfully boring and unimportant. Not so. I think it is in these small arenas is where change can be most effectively accomplished. Encourage high school and college organizations. Help them find funding. It is a long struggle fought on many fronts. Depending on Federal and state leaders to accomplish our goals is insufficient and short-sighted.
    But it is getting late, literally, and I must pause. Just do not underestimate the size and resources of the opposition. The women of the GOP are but a small portion and with fewer resources of their own except their vote. But having a few more change or more importantly encourage their children to be more open to change would be a much greater victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well stated and gets to the heart of the matter!!

      Delete
    2. Unknown basically NAILS IT!!! This has been in the works for decades. They know that all politics are really local. That is why school board and city council elections matter.

      Delete
    3. Sonia Allahverani-Jam AfsharAugust 13, 2012 at 7:16 PM

      But what about the GOP women in politics?? They don't fall into that catagory of being mindless, dutiful wives. I don't disagree with your description of the conservative women as a whole. I just wonder why they, the supposedly educated ones, fall prey to the this crap that women are not equal? We (women) have been fighting for our equallity for decades and are now in our 3rd century of fighting. This just blows me away. Why are we still so stupid about this. If R and R get in the White House, I would not be surprised if they try to take our RIGHT to vote as well as everything else.

      Scary....very scary.

      Delete
    4. My knee-jerk, first thought after reading Unknown's comment was that the one's having the most children are also the one's indoctrinating them with the conservative ideas... I can pass on my values to my only child, but maybe there are more reasons to be involved in school than just to advocate for my own daughter.

      Delete
    5. I'm sure they will try to take our right to vote. I've read GOP statements about how the biggest mistake America ever made was allowing women the right to vote. They say we're too emotional and back when men were men they knew not to listen to our hysteria and nonsense. That in the good old days, when things were "right," that it was acceptable and NECESSARY to put their hands on a woman to show her her place. We cannot let these people into the White House. I can't live in a world where IVF is illegal because of a personhood law, where being a woman is a pre-existing condition, or where my doctor not only lies to me, but withholds critical information from me on the off-chance I may decide to terminate my pregnancy. We have to find a way to stop this. We have to.

      Delete
    6. Your assessment about schools doesn't make sense. Either your impersonal pronouns are getting mixed up, or you don't know what your own party stands for.


      "I think the GOP strategy of 'getting them while they are young' is the most effective. That is why they (-GOP?) are on the school boards and in positions of deciding educational goals and the textbooks to be used. Arguing with entrenched true believers (like Kimberley) is usually a waste of time. I think focusing on school age and college age women will be most productive. And fighting vigorously against any and all attempts to privatize schools, expand home schooling"

      Are you wanting the democratic party to oppose parental control of education, or do you believe that the GOP opposes it? Obviously, the democratic party is the one that tends to oppose school reform. However, if that is the argument you are intending to make, it makes even less sense. Public schools are supposed to be apolitical. We are not a socialist or communist state; classrooms are not arenas in which the state indoctrinates young minds. Therefore, the move toward private school, school reform, and homeschooling does not remove the "state sponsored truth" from a child. While private schools and homeschooling have the potential for passing on the parent's beliefs, wouldn't those beliefs be transferred to the child anyway? Is it possible that the great majority of these parents simply want the best education for their child(ren)?

      Let me tell you a story. By now, I'm sure you have all guessed that I am a conservative female. However, I also go to a liberal college and am applying for master's school in a social science. Me eldest sister has five (GASP!) children, and she homeschools. Her three school-aged children are well versed in their three R's, have ample time to excel in their favorite subjects (history and fish; animal husbandry and mechanics; and math, respectively), read several chapter books a week, AND to play. An older member of her home school group just graduated. A FEMALE student received a full scholarship to a prestigious university for chemical biology. Even though her mother was a SAHM, Republican and conservative Christian, her home-school group was extremely excited and supportive of her decision to NOT be a SAHM, and to decide her own future.

      If women have the right to decide their own futures, as your statements claim, they should also have the right to decide futures that you don't like. How is it more important that a woman have reproductive rights in utero than out? Why do democratic commenters highlight the very far right beliefs, but refuse to acknowledge the much larger and moderate core? Why did the "War on Women" issue come into being around the election and not any of the four years prior? Isn't it a bit coincidental that it happened then, when presidential approval ratings were low? This coincidence is why the GOP believes it to be false. Strangely enough, I haven't heard anything about the War on Women since the president was elected.

      As far as men being paid more, yes. It sucks. No one agrees that she should be paid less than a man. No men believe women should be paid less than they. Most people believe it is false. Employee handbooks instruct employees not to discuss pay. Until there is open dialog about it, no one will believe it happens. Besides, equal pay is only part of the problem. There is still equal promotions - often a slip for unequal pay that is legal "on the books". However, even when we know it happens (at a particular job), it's impossible to simultaneously keep your (sexist/racist but PAYING) job while fighting the inequality. A horrible but paying sexist/racist job is still better than no job at all.

      Delete
  13. Even if she likes being called it in the bedroom during dirty talk? That's a rather extreme stance to take on what goes on between two consenting adults in bed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyhoo, all that aside, good read. Will share.

      Delete
  14. I am a pro-life, moderate woman who agrees with most of your points. I generally vote Republican because I am pro-life, and consider it a key issue for me. So you could consider me a 'GOP woman', I suppose. I personally consider myself a moderate because I think both parties are insane for expecting people to blindly follow all of their platforms. Anyway, I'd like to weigh in on these issues, but be warned, it'll be long...

    Of course it's not okay to deny women equal pay, and it's not okay for anybody to demean anybody else, regardless of gender, race, etc. Period.

    As far as the Kansas story goes, it seems that the problem isn't birth control, it's a right of conscience law. The law, to my knowledge, says that pharmacists have the right to refuse to provide abortifacient drugs (which would include the morning-after pill, but NOT the birth control pill, condoms, etc. Those do not act as abortifacients). I would rather women be slightly inconvenienced than force pharmacists to provide drugs that, in their opinion, kill a child.

    I was under the impression that the AZ law blocks 'wrongful birth' lawsuits, where a mother sues because her baby is born with a defect and she would rather have had an abortion. I don't know how that translates into doctors not informing women about birth defects. If that's actually the case, though, then of course I would oppose the bill-- lying to people who come to you seeking medical help is not okay.

    As far as the life of the mother thing, I completely believe that women who will die if they carry their pregnancy to term should have abortion as an option, and most pro-lifers I know (and I know a LOT) would agree with me. For pro-lifers, it's not woman-vs-child, it's that we want everybody to live. If there's a situation where both will die if no action is taken, it's better to save one life.

    I would like to add, though, that most life-threatening pregnancies become so after 20 weeks. By that time, most doctors choose to try and deliver the baby by inducing labor or through C-section. There's a risk of the baby dying, yes, but doctors try to save both lives. Of course, if a 7-week pregnancy becomes life-threatening, there's not much anyone can do, and that's a heartbreaking situation all around, but that is VERY rare. I can cite sources if anyone needs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You and I may not agree on everything but I appreciate your thoughtful reply!!!!!!!
      Thank you for taking the time to state your case.

      Delete
    2. I, too, am a right to lifer, so considered a GOP woman, I suppose. However, most of my voting occurs after much research and weighing the outcome not on one population, but all. I agree with the writer of the above response to Kimberly. I wish instead of drawing sides we would all come together. We, as citizens of this great country, could get so much more accomplished as citizens, rather than liberals and conservatives pitted against each other over every issue in this country. I see Kimberly has some undertone of the idea in her article. So, don't expect a wrath of hate from the GOP women, don't accuse us of not being able to think on our own, many of us are leaders in industry, government and other businesses. Many of us are very reasonable; we know about the inequalities; the discrimination; and would like to work towards change. Unfortunately, my experience with my liberal friends, has always drawn the response, you wouldn't understand you are a Republican. I would. I chose to have a child, knowing she would die at birth and knowing I was at risk. I thought about aborting, but I hoped the doctors were wrong. They weren't but, I have somewhere to go and I have pictures of her. I have been denied jobs because I am woman and I have been forced out of jobs by women. So, I go back to lets find a forum we can work together for change benefiting all women (and men). I am sure we can all look at our government and see there are far more men in office than women. Maybe we should start there.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, I appreciate what you have said being that you are pro-life. However, one fact you need to know....morning after pills are NOT abortifacient, the are stronger versions of the birth-control pill and PREVENT the pregnancy from happening. It DOES NOT ABORT A FERTILIZED EGG.

      I get so tired of this lie. RU486 is the only one designed to abort.

      And, please, for those of you that believe in God, he performs 99.9% of the abortions that take place...they are called Miscarriages...which people have said the baby/pregnancy aborted.

      Delete
    4. The difference between "Pro- Lifers" and "Pro-Choicers" is that pro-choicers are not forcing anyone to have abortions. We just want it to be an option. Pro- lifers want to take the option away ultimately forcing many unwanted births. I have a friend who before she went to college, became pregnant and without a father (he wanted no parts) to help her, she chose to have an abortion. She is now a sucessful dentist with 3 children and says that her life would have gone in a different direction had she had a baby at such a young age. Abortion is a very difficult and personal decision to make. How dare anyone make that decision for you. Either way the parents (often just the mother) are the ones left to deal with the aftermath. Not anyone else. Her abortion did not effect you at all.

      Delete
    5. There are Democratic women who are both pro-life and pro-choice. The 3 are not mutually exclusive.

      The Republican party is anti-choice. Republican hierarchy called the Mariana Islands a model to emulate. Women workers were enslaved, raped by their `bosses`and forced TO have abortions, all under the US flag but free of US law. NO CHOICE about having sex, NO CHOICE about the consequences of sex.

      The Republican party favors legal marital rape (the last state criminalized marital rape in the 1990`s) and opposes abortion. This Republican Party position is most actively advocated by the Eagle Forum. Again, in their view a married woman has NO CHOICE about having sex, and NO CHOICE about the consequences.

      Republicans have said that women who are defense contractors and service members shouldn`t have legal recourse after they are raped and shouldn`t have access to abortion in the theater of operations. NO CHOICE about having sex, NO CHOICE about the consequences, not even a day in court.

      The is a satirical site, but it does a good job of recounting actual anti-choice and misogynist positions of the Republican party regarding rape: http://www.republicansforrape.org/

      Delete
    6. Thank you both so much for taking the time to reply and Kimberley for posting this. I love the idea of civil conversation from both sides of the aisle.

      I think being Pro-Life personally and being Pro-Life politically are very different things.

      Personally, I respect your choice to choose for your own body.

      The pharmacist issue. A pharmacist job is to fill and provide prescriptions safely; it is not his/her job to judge or decide if it is right for the person taking the prescription. If birth control pills or morning-after pills are a problem for him/her personally he/she should make sure there is someone on staff who will provide it without a problem to a customer. This was a personal decision by the woman made with her doctor, as what was best for her. The pharmacist's job is to fill it. By pushing personal feelings, religion or judgement on the person purchasing the drug they are not fulfilling their roll in the medical system—and perhaps they should consider another profession.

      Take it another direction (and I'm taking this to an extreme, but please hang in there with me.) You have a persistent cough and your doctor is concerned that it may develop into full blown, in some cases life-threatening, pneumonia; so your doctor gives you a prescription that should suppress the cough. You get to the counter and the pharmacist says he will not fill your prescription, because, according to his religion, coughing is a way to get rid of demons, and by fulfilling the prescription he is allowing you to stay possessed and that would kill your immortal soul. How would you feel about this? Perhaps, dumbfounded, you leave, intending to try another pharmacy. Now imagine that happened at all the pharmacies within a 200 mile radius of where you lived, and you had to drive over 3 hours to get the medicine you needed. That is how it feels when someone uses their religion to deny medication. My religion does not say that conception happens when a sperm enters the body. So to me, this is unconscionable. I do not consider it killing a baby, since in all actual-hood it takes a full 24 hours after the sperm and egg meet for it to be fertilized and for the cells to start splitting—and that's if you have a very determined swimmer. I consider it prevention of conception until I am at a point in my life where my partner and myself are ready to have a baby and provide the best possible life for our children. So if a pharmacist was to look at me and say, "no, I will not fill your legally obtained prescription," I think that is beyond unprofessional and into the realm of illegal, as I have been denied service and medical treatment based on my religion.

      Sorry that got so long. I know it is a very sensitive subject, but I find that a lot of recent GOP laws have been based on religion which should be far and away from our government. It may not seem so bad if you are of the religion getting laws made to suit you—but consider if it was another religion entirely. Would you still support such extreme actions?

      (The Arizona law prevents doctors who 'made a mistake,' from getting sued; but the Kansas law, actually allows doctors to lie to their patients about the condition of their pregnancy. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/14/the-legal-claims-of-wrongful-birth-vs-the-right-to-lie-over-abortion.html)

      Thank you again for taking the time to write back, and allowing my response. I hope that the conversation can keep going; after all, it's through civil conversation compromise that some of the best decisions can be made. :)

      Delete
    7. Two more Republican anti-life positions:

      1) PUBLIC HEALTH Opposition to funding public health and opposition to paying to vaccinate the poor (a Republican Eagle Forum favorite) present a risk to public health. For example, this has now resulted in a Whooping Cough epidemic in Washington state and there are babies dying, both of conservative and of progressive couples. So, they choose to endanger the lives of everyone, including their own babies who are born, rather than pay a pittance for vaccinating the poor.

      2) ENVIRONMENT Republicans oppose environmental regulations, enforcement of existing regulation and disclosure of any dangers to surrounding communities. Republicans want to close the EPA so that women, Democrats and Republicans, can live in communities like Times Beach, MO, have astronomical number of pollution induced miscarriages and when they can carry to term, have a huge number of still births and or live births with severe birth defects.

      So, if you need to terminate a pregnancy to save your own life, that is not okay, but if a chemical company terminates your pregnancy with pollution to fill their pockets, that is perfectly fine. And because you support a party that opposes disclosure, you may not even know why you are having miscarriages (abortion by pollution) or why family members are severely ill.

      Delete
    8. "I am a pro-life, moderate woman who agrees with most of your points. I generally vote Republican because I am pro-life, and consider it a key issue for me."

      I find this infuriating. You seem to disagree with a whole lot of Republican policies, yet you still vote Republican, because of one issue? A government does so much more than decide abortion laws. When you vote Republican, you are supporting ALL of their policies, you can't just pick and choose. Would you marry someone who agreed with you about abortion issues if everything else about them sucked? You are supporting Republican ideas about health care, economics, education, international relations etc. just because they agree with you on one issue. Your vote affects so much more than whether or not women can get abortions. I think it is totally irresponsible to base a vote on one issue, no matter how important it is to you.

      Delete
  15. Kimberly - thank you!! I especially like the questions you have posed to GOP women. Honestly - I find it hard to believe that any woman can continue to support a party who obviously believes they (women) are less valuable than men.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've fought my entire LIFE for EQUAL. My eldest sons father died in a wreck when our son was an infant. Despite Repeat efforts my son was DENIED any form of survivor benefits via the NJ courts. seeking a way to support him while aquiring a trade I joined the navy, Sea bees. One of the First of 10 women to train as such. to my horror, the chain of command disappeared the minuet I showed up. I faced cultural discrimination, bullying hazing and came out with what would remain undiagnosed Post traumatic Stress Syndrom STILL uncompensated for 30 yrs of file wait, denial, repeat,(currently Pending 3rd filing).. I wanted family and waited 14 yrs to meet and marry, (heaven forbid you birth a child w/no male representative).. So horrid was my life made via the MALE dominated society I swore if I had a daughter I would drown her at birth to spare her the suffering. Double standards & abuse. I DID have a daughter, and then another son. Unfortunatley Pharmaceutical sales were more important to a Dr. who was to treat my husband for "depression' when in 1991 jobs became near impossible. post giving birth I developed periods that were SO crippling I repeat went to clinics seen by male and female GYNs only to be told "some women get a heavy period".. I began to think I was a whimp..a decade later the veteran admin would diagnose "adenomoyosis", my uterus growing into my stomach wall. large Doses of hydrocodone were prescribed. I sought options in order I NOT become an addict OR damage my liver. Cannabis turned out to be safe & effective, the pain I was in I was Later told was akin to what heroin withdrawl is like. UNBEARABLE, the bleeding? I could fill a gallon bucket in 1 day. yet, I had to continue pluggin the 40 hr JOBS in order keep the family housed and fed.. surgery freed me, but I was arrested for a garden of my Medication & made to serve 8 months in JAIL for Caring for my HEALTH? Insult to injury as staying HOMELESS in New Jersey snow to see out 2 yrs probation was NOT an option..AND there was NO HELP. 2009 my Lifetime WORKED and PAID into Social security disability benefits were "suspended" for, "violation of probation"? I have been ALL this time since without income of any sort, crippled surviving via church canned goods/trash can finds and a few generouse friends who help with what they are able.. It's been HORRIBLE I would NOT wish being a female on anyone. I am glad my daughter has not suffered similar physical problems. Of financial need both my sons are now serving our empire, (oops I meant military)defending that FREEDOM I DO NOT have to Grow a garden..My daughter is working post she graduated high school. I am a homeless Mom made Fugitve via laws that prevent WOMEN the MOST beneficial herb we have to curb our period pains/reproductive issues.. HOW is this fair just or equal? Independence.. for me that would be a GARDEN. HOW dare Mrs. oboma come out with a PRINT book as in kill MORE trees boasting "Homegrown" with a potted Pansy plant on the cover? how much $$ do the Obomas need that she had to print a book? I suggest it is well past time for Humanity to rise up in UNITY so no one is left out of basics. No matter "income ability" the MAN MADE DOLLAR continues to Stand on the heads feet and reproductive systems of WOMEN, the BIRTHERS and NURTURERS.. REAL LIFE. The only equal I have seen is homelessness and JAIL, anyone in this Police state can go.. you need not be a criminal. Rapists an abusers w/rapists may all roam free, but NOT cultivators? Are the power heads THAT afraid of a Fk'n GARDEN? really folks it is time for seriouse RADICAL change. Future depends on it. Evie Mcknight

    ReplyDelete
  17. Now hold on there. The GOP aren't the only ones waging war on women now.

    Nancy Pelosi, who backed the Equal Pay bill, was found to be paying her female staffers $27,000 less than male staffers. Senators routinely pay an average of $6,500 per year less to women than men for the same job. When called out about the disparity, Nancy replied "it's another world" and refused to condemn the Senate practice. No word at all on her own practice, of course.

    How many mothers have been attacked by liberals for having "never worked a day in her life"? I seem to have lost count.

    One could look up Kristine Svinicki's tribulations with liberals in Congress for her attempts to protect female staffers in the NRC from the NRC chairman's abuse. It reads like a soap opera.

    I don't follow Rush, and his comments were way off-base, but he has a point. $3000 a month for birth control that Walmart and Target offer for $4 a month, and condoms can be had anywhere for free or as little as 75 cents? C'mon. Who wouldn't have called that as the BS it was?

    Let's not forget it was over Democrats' opposition that the Republicans got the 19th Amendment passed, enabling women to vote.

    I'm sure I can come up with more examples if I had more time to work on it, but you get the idea. Let's not pretend liberals are the singular champions of women's issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the 19th Amendment was passed (cir 1920), it was prior to the more recent, mid-20th century shift where the Democrats became the liberal party, and Republicans the conservative. Remember, Lincoln was a Republican, but I doubt he would recognize or support the GOP today.

      Delete
    2. Logical fallacy, ad hominem argument.

      One can be both a hypocrite and have a valid point. Conservatives should accept this as an axiom.

      This is not to imply agreement with your points.

      You PROVE the RNC supports women`s equality by putting the ERA back in the party platform (it was removed in 1980). And add to the platform support of women`s reproductive freedoms and opposition to legal marital rape (reversing the more onerous of the Republicans`Eagle Forum positions).

      Delete
    3. How about you provide ONE example other than Hilary Rosen who accused stay at home moms of not working. Being a SAHM is one of the hardest jobs a woman will ever do. However, unless Anne Romney did all of her own laundry, cooking, shopping, made all of her own meals, did the dishes and cleaned every room in her house without paid help, she had it easier than 99% of the SAHMs I know, liberal OR conservative.

      Delete
    4. Hillary Rosen didn`t say squat about stay at home moms. She said one woman, Ann Romeny, wealthy beyond the imagination of most women, who has household staff, who sent her boys to boarding schools, while not holding a job outside the home, did not work. Rosen`s statement is accurate. Implying that Rosen meant it to be generalized to women who are stay at home moms, is bearing false witness against her. It is lying.

      Delete
    5. Sandra Fluke did not claim that birth control cost "$3000 a month" as you say. Here are the words from the transcript of her testimony... "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school".

      Delete
    6. and BC is not 4dollars at walmart. (cant speak for target, never been). It is 9 dollars a month and only offers limited forms (I believe theres about 4 or 5 different BCS) none of which I can take. Many women have to try several different BCP's before finding one that works for them, and most of them are not on the "9 dollar list".

      Delete
  18. NO laws have been brought forth by Democrats penalizing stay at home moms. Not one. This whole war on stay at home moms is a diversionary tactic. Name one law that penalizes a mother for not working. ONE! I believe you saw the proposed law I listed in the blog that penalizes single moms - conservative or liberal, calling her status a "contributing factor in child abuse and neglect." That's a war. Not an off the cuff comment by Hilary Rosen who is guilty of not choosing a better way to make her point as she was talking about Ann Romney not identifying with the average American when it pertains to struggling financially.

    No one said Liberals and Democrats are without fault. The right has a much more extreme approach with launching over 2 thousand (google it) pieces of anti-women legislation. 916 of which were introduced in the first three months of 2011 (google it).

    I am not going point by point with you for two reasons:

    1. Your mind is made up, so it would be circles.

    2. This article articulates it better than I can:
    Why Conservatives Win EVERY Online Debate
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/29/debate/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not certain how anyone who reads so much as a cereal box can possible not know that the right wing is going out of it's way to lessen the rights of women, children, minorities, the elderly, the handicapped, gays, and the infirmed from having rights in this country...It's on every front page in every paper, it's written about in every magazine and on every blog and it's on the lips of every woman one speaks with during ones day! It's outrageous and I suspect based on some sort of "woman hatred and sense of superiority" that these old mostly white guys apparently harbor from some sick teachings they've encountered in their lives that make it all seem okay to them and eminating somewhere between their wallets and their rather idle male members.........rather like the middle eastern nations they so vehemently insult for the same sort of behaviours. Look at what they are attacking: Women and children and elderly and poor health care, job training, military families, social security, medicare, medicade, child labor laws, ANY labor laws, clean air and water and food processing and of course voting rights and so forth......all of which serve to destroy peoples health and jobs and lives, not to mention the health and wealth and families of the entire country and it's economy......are we sure these folks are our friends and compatriots? Hardley! They are the enemy of all that this country SAYS it's stands for! It's really refreshing to read your article on the subject Kimberley and know that the younger women of today are so "heads up" on what is happening. We older women need to dawn our fighting gear once again and support todays young women in their continued fight against the old "puritanical" view of women!Thanks so much for your enlightening article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like all bullies, Republicans target those least able to retaliate. They scapegoat the poor and powerless for their own failings. Along with the misogyny and homophobia, pretty classic fascist strategy.

      Delete
  20. As a liberal woman, I have had several people tell me there is no war on women and when I supply them with facts they tell me I am wrong. Thank you Kimberley for taking the courage to speak out. I have been an advocate for woman's rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask them to PROVE the party`s support of women`s rights by putting the ERA back in the party platform. It was removed in 1980.

      Delete
  21. Hillary was right, a vast right-wing conspiracy has been underway for over 20 years. Wake up women, nicely done author

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is interesting...I just want to say when is 'viagra' a necessity over birth control? Plenty of insurances carry this coverage. If my daughter was raped by someone on 'viagra', I suppose then he'd get off based on some policy someone will dig up that she had it coming to her because she should have known that alot of insurance companies cover 'viagra' to begin with. That is how unbelievably absurd some of this sounds. Those poor suffragets (speeling) and what they went through for women to have the right to vote and so many women don't even celebrate that fact. So many women give it away.
    During WWII, many women went to work in factories and labored long because of the absenteeism of men in the workforce. These same women were forced to go back home after the war was over and told there were no jobs available for them. A bank teller during that time (when men held most of those postions) could feed his family on his paycheck. Since women have been bank tellers (amongst other jobs, this is just an example), the pay scale lowered dramatically. Maybe this is the set up here with so many GI's not being able to find gainful employment when they return? I don't know, but it all sounds really dumb for any woman to want to give up the rights their mother's and mother's mother fought so hard for.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you for saying all this. You are fighting the good fight for women everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. For years I've wondered how any woman can vote against her own self-interest or against those of her daughters, nieces, etc. Sadly, I know the answer: Religion. Conservative women of every patriarchal faith are forced to be "in submission" to their husbands, fathers and other males. I had a wonderful, sweet Aunt Marada, may she rest in peace. She voted for Democrats her entire life because her father told her she'd go to hell if she didn't.

    Religion was created and designed to keep us in line. We are too powerful and we DO NOT NEED MEN. But we need the rights my generation fought so hard for. Thank you for speaking up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a male and agree with you 100%.

      Delete
  25. I love it when Republicans qoute the good things that they have done in the PAST. Freeing the slaves, the 19th amendment in 1920. The Republicans of 1920 are the Democrats of today. The bigots of the old Democratic party became Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As a staunch Pro-Lifer and as an equally staunch Liberal, I realize that I'm an oddity. I appreciate your gentle articulation of the very good points in this letter. While I don't disagree with you, I would like to point out what I consider to be one of the great gender divides in our country: There aren't enough women in public office. I don't just mean liberal women, I'd like to see the donkeys right alongside the elephants across our nation supporting women running for office and I'd like to see more women embrace the idea of running. I believe most of the issues your letter discusses could easily be addressed if we, as a nation, could manage to lose our gender bias. Check out these numbers!
    Women are still under-represented at all levels of government.
    Women hold only 17% of the seats in Congress.
    Only 22% of all statewide elective executive office positions are currently held by women.
    State Legislatures are only 24% women.
    Only 6 out of 50 states have a female governor.
    The United States trails behind much of the world—ranking 90th in the number of women in our national legislature. (*Note: The U.S. is listed as 73rd, but after accounting for tied rankings of other countries, the ranking for the U.S. is 90th.)
    On average, male cabinet appointees outnumber women cabinet appointees in our states by a ratio of 2 to 1.
    50% less women than men consider of running for office. Of those, 30% less actually run, with only a fraction seeking higher office. (Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005.)
    Women constituted 54% of voters in the 2008 elections, but only 24% of state legislators.
    Women of color represent only 4% of Congress and 23% of women Members of Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It is always different when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot! Hypocritical idiots! Another numbskull taking advantage of government services, Senator Scott Brown. He is against Obamacare, but at this time his 23 year old Ayla is being supported by her father by keeping her on his insurance until the age of 26. Kettle....black.....hello???

    ReplyDelete
  28. I have to take issue with the woman who claims birth control costs $3,000/month. That is an insanely inflated figure and makes me question everything else she said.

    However, condoms are NOT the same as the BC pill, which Sandra Fluke was talking about. She was testifying about the medical necessity of it for reasons other than just to go have "lots of sex."

    I was first put on the pill at the age of 15; a full three years before I ever had sex. Because it was the only way to regulate the 4-week long period that wouldn't end and resolve my dangerous anemia.

    My very pro-life, very conservative niece takes the pill because she wanted to prolong the need for a hysterectomy until after she had a family.

    Telling people to buy a $5 condom or get a generic version of the pill, is not the answer to all female reproductive issues. And you do a disservice to your entire message when you make unfounded statements about cost or try to take a complex issue and make it about just having sex.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A reply to Blkwdw86: your facts are wrong.

    Firstly, the stats about Pelosi paying women less did not take into account equal positions. If a woman is a secretary and a man is a statistician, the discrepancy in their pay is not due to gender, but to position. EQUAL pay for EQUAL work, not equal pay for everyone for all positions.

    Secondly, only ONE GOP woman has been "attacked" for not having worked a day in her life and in fact-- she hasn't. She's being touted as an expert on working mothers and she has never had a JOB. I'm sure that she has some expertise as a homemaker, but being a working mother and being a homemaking mother are, in fact, two very different things. She wasn't attacked for being a homemaker; her expertise on working mothers was challenged because she hasn't worked a day in her life.

    She hasn't, not in the context of being a "working mother."

    As for Kristine Svinicki, her nomination has been held up because people are claiming that she isn't properly qualified and she's too buddy buddy with the industry that she would be regulating, pointing to specific incidents in which she made a decision that the Democrats think are questionable. You're turning that into some sort of sexism? The fact that Democrats aren't willing to put someone unqualified into a position simply because she's female is sexist-- against females?

    As for the price of birth control pills being BS, no, YOU'RE full of BS. Birth control pills are a CLASS of medication. There are literally hundreds of them. The have different formulations, different uses, different side-effects on different women. To say that there is ONE variety of birth control pill available at one store that isn't even in many major cities is completely irrelevant.

    Birth control pills treat menopause. My mother's menopause pills were denied coverage by a Catholic health insurance company as "birth control." I have personally been on at least 5 different birth control formulations and I have NEVER taken birth control pills as a contraceptive.

    No one is trying to pretend that there's a single pill for cancer treatment that works for all forms of cancer, but for some reason, there's supposedly one single birth control pills that treats every medical condition in every woman with no side-effects-- and that medicine costs $7 at Walmart.

    That's ludicrous.

    EVERY point that you're pretended that you made is filled with lies and misinformation-- and those lies and that misinformation is part of the Republican War on Women, not proof of the factuality of the war being on both sides.

    You did not address a SINGLE question that was posed. You posted inflammatory and untrue rhetoric. You have attacked people without provocation or justification. If you think that that is the way to win an argument with women, you must think that women are moronic.

    I, for one, am not.

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK. Now print this in every newspaper in the land. And read it on every radio station.
    How the hell can Republicans be so against women????

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks for the thoughts, Kimberly.

    I will concentrate on abortion, the others are to me a no brainer.

    1) A legal abortion is 14 times safer than a full pregnancy: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

    2) When an issue faces two opposing arguments, that of freedom and that of life, we should pause and think. There is no law, not even for Christians that says that life should always prevail. If that were the case, then Christian should be forced to donate one of their kidneys, just like pregnant women are forced by (some) Christians (and by the Catholic church) to carry out their pregnancy full term. Giving a kidney has relatively low risk, certainly less than a full term pregnancy, and if it can save lives, then all Christians should be forced to do it. Why aren't they? Why this hypocrisy? Hundreds of people die every year because of kidney failure and an inability to get a transplant. The life vs freedom argument should prevail here too. And it doesn't. Then women shouldn't suffer the same fate. Period. (This is NOT my argument, but an argument put forth by Sister Teresa Forcadas, the most liberal nun you've seen).

    3) The church should stop using a few issues as poster issues and concentrate on Jesus' message: love. Love them all, regardless of sins. Choosing to fight for abortion (and support guns for everyone), gays (and then f*** children as some have done), and the sanctity of marriage (when the marriages proposed in the bible are all but saint) is absurd and supportive of a conservative ideology, that litte if nothing does to love, life and the poor - again, Jesus message.

    4) A fetus is NOTHING without the mother it inhabits. The mother then is king to its existence and should therefore decide over it. Not doing so is slavery.

    5) Concerning teen pregnancies, which are the mostly likely to end up in abortions: "Those unplanned adolescent pregnancies that end in abortion save society the economic, public health, and social costs that could have been incurred, including higher risk of adverse birth outcomes, low birthweight, infant mortality, reduced educational attainment, and (thereby) limited future employment prospects and earnings potential (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2000). The availability of and access to abortion, then, carries specific impacts on women, children, and the society of which they are a part. Out of desperation, some women who cannot afford an abortion will attempt to induce one themselves; this is not only medically very dangerous, but is likely to be unsuccessful and result in further delays
    before seeking a safe abortion, at a greater cost financially, and with a greater potential for complications." http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/professional_education/Bridging_the_Gap_Training_Symp.pdf

    Yours, a liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love your points. A lot of the objections to choice are based on what people claim to be "Christianity" but when you try to point out that the US is a SECULAR state, they can`t even concede that point.

      Some comments on choice and religion even though it does NOT matter at all in a secular state:

      - Those confused about the Lord`s position on life should ask anyone not a descendant of Noah to explain it to them.

      - The Bible doesn`t say squat about abortion, unless you count when God commands that the unborn be ripped from the bodies of enemy women.

      - For centuries, the Catholic church allowed abortion up until quickening or ensoulment. One would think a timeless truth would not change over time.

      - Some have confused human life with living human tissue. Human tissue, like a zygote can be frozen and reused. A human being, a human life, cannot be frozen solid and revived. So, no commandment not to kill applies.

      - Most fertilized eggs (70%+) end in natural abortion (miscarriage) making abortion God`s intelligent design.

      - Even if you believe the US is a "Christian" state, the founders didn`t agree with anti-choice laws, abortion was most often not viewed as a crime, rarely treated as a misdemeanor.

      More from a religious perspective: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm

      More from a rational perspective:
      https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ItouP7qed2sr_SzR9rMT_UKVAFvlrZd8KSes4AazoP4

      Delete
  32. If you don't believe there is a war on women you have your head so far up your ass your viewing the world through your nostrils

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thank you for putting into words many of my own feelings regarding GOP women.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you for this article Kimberly. As a senior citizen I did not think we would have to fight this battle again.

    To another poster, Mrs. Obama's book on the White House garden will donate the proceeds to the National Park Service.



    ReplyDelete
  35. That there are women here claiming to be "pro-life" yet claiming also to support a party that aggressively pursues an anti-life agenda* just proves that the rank and file Republicans are not even thinking. That so many employ logical fallacies as evidences a lack of logical thinking.

    Our problems start when we think they are thinking.

    The conservative hierarchy doesn`t actually believe any of `the rules` apply to them. Rules are for peons. Even if they are women, they think "Well, I will just fly to Canada..." And this seeming inconsistency doesn`t trouble them one bit. In their radical Calvinist (dominionist) view, they are the Elect of God, saved by grace alone, completely regardless of merit. That they are fortunate, only proves they deserve to be fortunate because they are the Elect. The rest of us may be unfortunate, which only proves we deserve to be unfortunate, because we are the damned Preterite.

    The rank and file Republicans (also Preterite) are scared into their primitive lizard brains so that they can`t and don`t THINK by the Republican elite (the Elect) so that they can be manipulated and exploited.

    If feminists don`t figure out how to reach them in their lizard brains on some real gut level, we`ll never be able to pull them up into rational thought with us.

    Likewise the pitch to the Republican elite women (the Elect) is pretty tough. We`re pitting rational thought against being the in the exclusive club of the Elect who cannot fall from grace no matter what. That your privilege is divine will and the disadvantages of `you people` (the Preterite) is also divine will is a pretty hard mythology to let go of.

    I think unmasking this phenomena helps. Learn more by reading: American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America by Chris Hedges
    Permalink: http://amzn.com/0743284437

    Garrison Keillor provides an interesting perspective on radical Calvinism, writing:

    "While other more tolerant Christians were feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, the Calvinists were ... taking each other’s temperature."

    http://www.salon.com/2007/04/25/keillor_87/

    * pro-war, pro-unproved war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-health care, anti-feeding the hungry, pro-torture, pro-secret prisons...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Alas, they don't want to hear it and they don't care. GOP women let their husbands or other men do their thinking, no need to worry their pretty little heads. A number of the women in my family are like this and there is no point in discussing anything but the weather or how their kids are doing in school (or not, one homeschools and it scares me because she's a moron).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Has anyone noticed how we as women seem to be returning/revisiting the era when we had no rights at all? The right to choose,financial equality, are constantly under attack and domination era seems to be emerging. Should I just get my burka now? I don't fucking think so.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I can't help thinking this backlash against women is the desperate struggle of men thinking it is their last hurrah. Young women are vastly outperforming their male counterparts in his school and in college admissions and performance once there. Successful businesses are learning that having leaders with relationship skils puts them at an advantage. We may have to struggle for now, but I have no doubt that women as a whole will not be relegated to "staying in their place".

    I have three daughters just into adulthood, so I certainly understand the importance of this election. Even if I considered myself a fiscal conservative, I could not vote republican, especially with the addition of Ryan to the ticket. What a betrayal of my daughters that would be!

    I have to say I have been incredibly dissatisfied with the GOP women in Congress that they have not spoke out for rights of women to have equal pay and reproductive choice. The party has moved so far to the extreme that centrists have been silenced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GOP women cannot speak out for the rights of women. Neither can moderate GOP men. That is why Olympia Snowe is quitting and other moderate Republicans are leaving public life. There are no redeemable features left in the Republican party, just puppets of conservative corporate elite and their uber-wealthy shareholders.

      Taking their current trajectory to its logical conclusion, we will all be living The Handmaid`s Tale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

      Delete
  39. Well said, Kimberly. I have only to add to the arguments made that "conservative women are generally religious and therefore believe that women are lessor creatures then men". I do not believe this is true. Having been a fundamentalist Christian in the past, I have seen the frustration with the patriarchal churches amongst Christian Women. The ones who are living in the church's teachings aren't any less feminist than those who are not church-going. They just swallow their frustration, which causes them to act out in other ways to "own" control over their lives; such as being shopaholics, alcoholics, adulteress', over-achievers, and living in depression caused by the need to "PROVE" their worth by serving others, in lieu of serving themselves. They may talk the talk, and on the surface walk the walk, but there are some extremely unhappy women in the Christian faith. that's all for now. Something to keep in mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Usually, "religious" extremism of all types and misogyny go hand in hand. The requirement to harm and oppress others is generally not well rooted in scripture but rather culturally and ethnically based with a thin layer of "religion" to disguise the hate.

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/women.htm

      Delete
  40. Very interesting and remarkably civil dialog. I too am a senior. I find that many GOP politicians are:
    1. Not recognizing the SEPERATION of church and state.
    2. Selfishly protecting their power by citing albeit erroneous Biblical quotes.
    3. Seldom respectful of others of differing opinions, especially their elders.
    4. Fighting hard to return to the good old days of the good old boys.
    As a strong woman of strong opinions will continue to work for and speak out for the equality of all people until the day I die. I commend all men and women who stand beside me in this beleif. Go get them Kimberly.

    ReplyDelete
  41. One of the problems I have with the "Democrats also make sexist comments" ruse is that it completely ignores scale.

    Both Republicans and Democrats have made sexist comments is true in the same way both an amoeba and a blue whale are life forms.

    Republicans are the blue whale of sexist comments!

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/24/now-objects-to-sexism-conservative-media-respon/184512

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thank you for being you! Awesome

    ReplyDelete
  43. Morgan Foster suggests women tell their relatives who insist on voting Republican that they will be providing child care for the off-spring they aren't ready for.

    I add, if they reply, "I thought you were a lesbian" say "Lesbians can be raped, no morning after pill means YOU ARE THE BABYSITTER!"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yes, many gut level conservative stances and replies are fear-based. Pointing out fallacies of logic does not diminish the fear, and therefore has the effect of "speaking down." While teaching very conservative, submissive students in a health care field, minds changed only after working directly with ill persons and their children, discovering how causes and obstacles to improvements are the results of conservative thinking and laws. Ranting or accusing, backed by stats and facts, would have built walls of deafness. Liberal stances that come across as superior or self righteous will fail to change minds and hearts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems rather impractically to physically expose everyone to the logical outcomes of their voting habits and also expect them to be able to both see and accept the connection.

      One positive step would be to start to crack down on fear-mongering and hate-mongering media that presents a clear and present danger to American democracy and is fomenting violence against women, minorities, liberals, Democrats, government officials, medical doctors, clinics...

      Delete
  45. I am compelled to respond to your article because so many people think it is excellent. It is excellent to the extent that it further validates my opinion about liberals. You present a false premise and posit arguments against it:
    False premise #1. Republicans are against women and have declared war on them. Nice emotional appeal to those who have given up their minds to emotional appeals over reason and logic. Think about it. Do you really believe that?
    False premise #2. Rush Limbaugh presented nine hours of lies about Sandra Fluke. It was not nine hours of lies. It was a discussion taken out of context and I believe somewhat deliberately because it was clearly a satiric example of how a woman who spends that much money on birth control must be having an inordinate amount of sex. There is a difference between Rush and liberal entertainers. He teaches the public about the difference and terrifies the left; so much so that the libs are trying every means possible to take away his free speech rights.
    False premise # 3. White men have a free pass on shaming epithets. Are you trying to inject humor into your article? Talk about hypocrisy and hyperbole! You conveniently omitted the vile names they have for white men. Maybe you haven’t heard them because you are not a white man. There is so much hate out there that your ilk has invented a new name to debase white men. “White-Hispanic.” A logical extension of that nomenclature would be White-African American, White- Arab, White-Asian, White-Native American and my favorite White-Caucasian. You now have a “free pass” to blame the white man for every crime committed. You did make me LOL and I appreciate that.
    False Premise # 4. Rick Santorum is an evil man. How low do you have to slither to find the worst possible personal situation to support your premise? It is typical of the personal attacks and distortions we are used to.
    False Premise # 5. You speak for ALL women. Not ALL women respond to emotional appeals. There are clear thinking woman who think their bodies have been usurped to advance personal agendas that have nothing to do with liberating woman. If liberals really believe woman deserve parity with men, let them start with the staff of the current administration.
    Finally, I hope you do not think this is hateful. I do not hate. If I did it would suck to be me. I do fear your thinking that tries to use hope and faith to trump logic and reason. If liberals get the totalitarian control they seek we are doomed. You will have nothing to write about in your utopian world of rainbows, butterflies and unicorns.
    You say you don’t understand how I can deny ALL women are under attack. It is because you have started with a false premise and fortified it with many others.

    Here’s a Lee Greenwood song for you:
    If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife. I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
    And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
    And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Followed this link to find out why liberal women think there is a "WAR" on women...given your 'justifications'...pretty silly war. Have you proved The War On Women is a liberal distraction to me...yes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Utoplan world of blind pride inthe flag and selected symbols of the US = sarcastically depicted Utopian world of unicorn & butterflies. Same thought as before: self righteouness and sarcasm from either camp serve to cut off our chances for dialogue. Therefore, diminished chances for solutions. AHHHH, but it can feel so good to get off that shot, eh?___

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thanks for your reply. You are right about my sarcasm. It did feel good to get it off my chest. You are right about my blind patriotism. I love this country without guilt or shame. I have heard the talking point about self- righteousness many times. I understand how it must feel when someone has their ideas challenged to the point they can only criticize the writer. No special talent is required to be a critic. It does take talent to be sarcastic to the point it befuddles the opposition. Freedom is the natural instinct of every living cell on this planet. I believe liberals will deny that freedom and they have proven it to me time and again. Here’s a solution for you: Rescind the military budget cuts that have emboldened the Russians to cruise undetected in our Gulf for over a month, at the same time they fly bombers within miles of Alaska. And no, that does not make me feel good.

    ReplyDelete
  49. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/singleton/

    Thank you for reconfirming that democrats will keep the government out of the bedroom.....unless they give you free birth control. Shame on you for lying about such a sad situation in order to prove your point.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I start my new book, GIRL POWER, with this Author's Note:

    Author's Note

    I started to write GIRL POWER because I was fascinated by the distain and cavalier attitude with which politicians of the right treated their own women constituents. Apparently, having no thought or concern of how women would retaliate, they passed gender related law after law, many of which were outlined in this book. These laws seemed to have one deleterious purpose—repressing the fair sex. Laws against, fair pay, choice, violence, family planning, even contraception were proposed and in most cases passed by Republican majorities and signed by Republican Governors in several states, sometimes under a cloak of secrecy.
    I knew women were upset about this and I wondered how these men would react the shoe were on the other foot. So, I started to write what I planned to be a thirty thousand word novella, hopefully ready for publication by June 1st. Well, I missed both marks by quite a bit.
    The news kept coming, growing weirder and weirder. This caused my book to grow and take longer and you know what? The more I wrote the more I believed a third party really is the answer to our growing problems with polarized politics and gridlock. So when you go to vote, remember GIRL POWER. I know I will.

    As you can see the subject of the book was a third party--A Woman's Third Party. Women outnumber men by 10 million and out voted men in 2008 by 9 million, so if they can get their act together, they have the numbers to make the changes which are necessary. However, failing that, they could still make a difference with their own party.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Inducing labor when a fetus is not viable is, in fact, an abortion. Abortion is premature termination of a pregnancy. The technical term for miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." Labor induction is the method that Dr. Tiller used most often and "pro-lifers" had no trouble calling what that abortion. As always, with conservatives, "okay for me, but not for thee."

    ReplyDelete
  52. There is certainly no argument that women are on the chopping block, but I'd just like to point out that it is the conservative method of diversion to bring up volatile social issues - especially prior to an election. This year is no different: in addition to minorities, illegal aliens and gays they have now turned their energies on suppressing women.

    This tactic is used to get us riled up and sniping at one another. Why? So we would take our energy and eyes off of the 1%. This outrage only muddies the waters and the airwaves when we need to be focused on revealing truths.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Bill White: I have an appointment, so I will have the rest of my refutations later:

    False premise #1. Republicans are against women and have declared war on them. Nice emotional appeal to those who have given up their minds to emotional appeals over reason and logic. Think about it. Do you really believe that?

    Republicans voted against and even repealed fair pay legislation not only at the federal level, but also in several states. Republicans voted against VAWA. It is Republicans that have voted for and passed TRAP laws, mandatory ultrasound laws, and even laws that ban abortion after 20 weeks with no provision for health or life of the pregnant woman. They have overwhelmingly rejected any and all attempts at curtailing men’s rights to make their own healthcare decisions in any way, shape, or form. They have even sought to codify calling rape victims “accusers” rather than “victims,” something not done for any other crime. They have voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, the only source of healthcare (not just birth control and abortion) for millions of young and low-income women, because some of their clinics provide abortions, an entirely legal procedure and one which has not been federally funded since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976. This can all be verified with a with a two-minute Google search. There's more, but this is plenty to show the general trend.

    On what plane of existence can any of this be considered anything other than vicious attacks on women? Yes, I really do believe that Republicans hate women. Their policies prove it.


    False premise #2. Rush Limbaugh presented nine hours of lies about Sandra Fluke. It was not nine hours of lies. It was a discussion taken out of context and I believe somewhat deliberately because it was clearly a satiric example of how a woman who spends that much money on birth control must be having an inordinate amount of sex. There is a difference between Rush and liberal entertainers. He teaches the public about the difference and terrifies the left; so much so that the libs are trying every means possible to take away his free speech rights.

    Both you and Rush Limbaugh are woefully ignorant regarding how birth control works. A woman does not take a pill each and every time she has sex. For hormonal contraception to work, it must be taken every day, whether or not one is having sex. When women pay for health insurance, whether as part of an employment package or through a school that requires such coverage, they have every right to get a health insurance package that meets their needs. This is not “getting birth control for free” or “from the taxpayers.” It is getting the health insurance coverage that one has paid for or earned.

    Limbaugh would be comical, except for the fact that so many, such as yourself, take his fact-free, hate-filled diatribes as gospel. In fact, the first time I heard Limbaugh on the radio, sometime in the early ‘90s, I thought he was a comedian. No one is trying to take away his free speech rights. He has every right to say whatever he wishes to. Just as the rest of us have every right to call him out on his hateful, lying drivel and let companies who advertise on his radio show know that we will buy from their competitors if they advertise on his show. Free speech does, indeed, have consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I tried to read this whole article, but had to stop when I realized I would never get these 5 minutes back. I think the real question that we are all wondering to ourselves needs to be addressed here. "Does this woman eat at chic-fil-a?" I guess she did think up this argument all by herself, though...

    ReplyDelete
  55. False premise # 3. White men have a free pass on shaming epithets. Are you trying to inject humor into your article? Talk about hypocrisy and hyperbole! You conveniently omitted the vile names they have for white men. Maybe you haven’t heard them because you are not a white man. There is so much hate out there that your ilk has invented a new name to debase white men. “White-Hispanic.” A logical extension of that nomenclature would be White-African American, White- Arab, White-Asian, White-Native American and my favorite White-Caucasian. You now have a “free pass” to blame the white man for every crime committed. You did make me LOL and I appreciate that.

    Wait, so “white” is now a racial epithet? You have a serious persecution complex. And you don’t make any sense whatsoever. I’m pretty sure that “honky” and “cracker” are far worse epithets than “white.”


    False Premise # 4. Rick Santorum is an evil man. How low do you have to slither to find the worst possible personal situation to support your premise? It is typical of the personal attacks and distortions we are used to.

    Actually, I don’t have to slither very far at all. The current Republican candidate for VP not only wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security, he voted for the “Let Women Die Bill” because he believes that women should not have access to emergency abortions even if their pregnancies are killing them. Also voted against VAWA and against fair pay for women. Doesn’t get much more evil than that.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Finally, I hope you do not think this is hateful. I do not hate. If I did it would suck to be me. I do fear your thinking that tries to use hope and faith to trump logic and reason. If liberals get the totalitarian control they seek we are doomed. You will have nothing to write about in your utopian world of rainbows, butterflies and unicorns.

    Projection much? You really do live in a fantasy world if you truly believe that liberals want totalitarian control. Liberals aren’t the ones who want to give employers the right to dictate their female employees’ preventive healthcare choices based on their, rather than each individual female employee’s, religious beliefs. Liberals aren’t the ones who want to allow employers to treat their employees like worthless slaves, with no job security, no benefits, no time off. It’s not liberals who are trying to force women to remain pregnant against their will. It’s not liberals that are throwing roadblock after demeaning roadblock in the way of women who want access to a legal medical procedure. We stand up for the belief that women own their bodies and have every right to prevent pregnancy and to continue or terminate that pregnancy according to their individual conscience, rather than the conscience of some bible-babbling politician.

    Next, you’ll want me to believe that up is down and black is white and that we have always been at war with Oceania.

    You say you don’t understand how I can deny ALL women are under attack. It is because you have started with a false premise and fortified it with many others.

    Now, if you could prove that none of the legislation that Ms. Johnson lists above has come to pass via Republican action, then you would have a point. But you haven’t done that. You’ve done what today’s brand of conservative has become so good at doing: projecting, pointing fingers, repeating Republican talking points, and never addressing the issues raised.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The kicker is the inordinate whinging of conservative women over what they call "the liberal war against conservative women." The cognitive dissonance over the false equivalence is astounding.

    Their evidence are the sexualized attacks against them by Hustler and I think Bill Maher and some other non-conservative blowhards. As if Larry Flynt or Bill Maher have anywhere near the credibility for liberals and non-conservatives that Limbaugh has for conservatives. I don't know very many people who even read Hustler. And many of us liberal women, and some men, consider Maher to be a sexist douche.

    And they have yet to come up with one piece of liberal legislation that targets conservative women.

    Conservatives just aren't playing with a full deck here. It would be laughable if they didn't have such a stranglehold on our low-literacy public.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Excellent job of posing questions that GOP women really need to answer! Unfortunately most of them have been raised in a cult-like environment & "their" men have "shielded" them from the harsh realities of life so doubt they are even allowed to read much outside of the Bible and RWNJ propaganda!

    ReplyDelete
  59. EVERY republican in congress voted for the same exact bill. ALL of them should be held accountable also.

    http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/8488?party=Republican&vote=Aye

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rape, incest, life/death for the mother.... No brainier. If you have sex with someone of the opposite sex then there is the chance of becoming pregnant. The pill, condoms, etc. are NOT 100% full proof. There are consequences to all actions. If you can't deal with these actions, then don't have sex. There is a risk of cancer with smoking - there is no abortion for cancer. Yes, treatments... But not as effective as abortion. If you smoke there is a good chance you wi get cancer and die. If you drive recklessly and speed there is a good chane you can kill yourself and possibly others. Also, no "abortion" for that. Just saying, people need to be accountable for their actions. Abortion is just a way of erasing accountability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am interested in knowing what you would do in this situation?
      "A conservative, 35 year-old, married, pregnant woman with three children under the age of five finds out there is an 90% risk of her dying if she follows through with her pregnancy. If she dies, her unborn fetus would too. Her family would be without a mother. The father would be left to take over the responsibilities of both parents while grieving and explaining to his children that it was better that mommy died as a result of a dangerous pregnancy rather than have a safe, legal abortion and live. What would you do in this situation? What would you want your daughter to do in this situation?"

      Delete
  61. I agree with the above. And on that note. For those who say abortion is not murder, think about this. When a women has consensual sex and gets pregnant, then realizes she doesn't want the baby, that's not murder according to you. But, if you were pregnant and wanted the baby, and were walking down the street with you husband.... And bam! Some guy punches you in the stomac causing a miscarriage. Is that murde or assault? Murder, the guy gets 25-life and possibly the death penalty. Assault, a slap on the wrist or possibly a few months in prison. Just think, if you and your husband had been trying to conceive for YEARS, and it finally happened... Then this guy comes along and wham. Bet you will reconsider the whole abortion isn't murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am interested in knowing what you would do in this situation?
      "A conservative, 35 year-old, married, pregnant woman with three children under the age of five finds out there is an 90% risk of her dying if she follows through with her pregnancy. If she dies, her unborn fetus would too. Her family would be without a mother. The father would be left to take over the responsibilities of both parents while grieving and explaining to his children that it was better that mommy died as a result of a dangerous pregnancy rather than have a safe, legal abortion and live. What would you do in this situation? What would you want your daughter to do in this situation?"

      Delete
  62. I guess you didn't read, or ignored, the first sentence. I 100% agree with you about your scenario. Rape, incest, or when it's life/death for the mother.

    Now, what about my scenario? No comments about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My apologies for not seeing that you did answer that.

      My answer to you is there are so many different reasons a woman or young woman may choose an abortion. For instance - what if a 16 year-old girl gets pregnant and lives with a single mom who works two jobs and lives month to month? They would not be able to properly take care of a baby and if the girl were to choose giving the baby up for adoption, it may cause her to miss a lot of school. If the fetus is less than a month old, it is not a baby. I do understand where you are coming from but I maintain that each individual should be able to choose. In choice, no one is forced to do what another person tells them to. Roe v. Wade was legalized and in turn has save the taxpayers money in welfare and other social programs that pay for these unwanted children.

      Delete
  63. Have you ever seen an aborted fetus? I have. Fingers twitching, body movements.... It's actually a person. When you abort it, you kill it. Plain and simple. Under a month, no movements. But, if your husband was in an accident and not moving, would you just pull the plug and say "I can't deal with this. I will be a single mom living pay check to pay check. I can't take responsibility for this too...." Marriage is also about accountability. And a 16 year old girl having sex falls on the parents. Teach your child about it before they do it. Or teach them about birth control. Either way, sometimes life's a bitch. You deal with it as it comes. Adapt, improvise, and overcome.

    I grew up in the heart of a major inner city. Poor, welfare, "new" school clothes at the Good Will. But I had great parents. Said I could do anything I wanted. 10 years later, and a serious student loan debt that I am paying down quickly... I live in Mid Town Manhattan doing what I love and making a great living. Never got anyone pregnant because of good parenting. People think they are good parents, but then again I think I'm a great cook. The best judgement is reserved for those standing on the outside tasting my food. Accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  64. First of all, "Anonymous" @5:11 PM on September 13, please cite date, time, and location of your "aborted fetus" viewing. Was there a doctor present? What was his or her name? If you refuse to do so, you are lying.

    If you're so interested in accountability, I'm sure you won't mind answering the following question, either. Are you male or female? I'm betting you're a male from your comments, so here's another question. You will never become pregnant, planned or unplanned, in your lifetime. Why is a woman's reproductive freedom any of your business?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Julie B., First off, I was a PA at The Feminist Health Center in Concord, NH. Too many dates and doctors to remember specifics. And, it's really non of your business.

    It was there where I changed my views on abortion. That's why I moved to NYC and changed fields.

    Yes, you are correct. I am male. You are very observant. Must have went to Yale or Stanford. And a woman's reproductive rights go out the window when you have unprotected sex, or your BC fails, and you get pregnant. Still falls on accountability.

    And not ONE person has answered the two scenarios above. That's the liberal mind-set. Answer a question by avoiding it.

    1. You are pregnant, you get punched in the gut, lose the baby. Murder or assault?
    2. Husband is in an accident, paralyzed and very little function. Pull the plug because you can't deal with life?

    Liberals think they are right, conservatives think they are right, and there is no gray area.... Accept that ALL people lack accountability for their actions these days.

    ReplyDelete
  66. One thing that has surprised me in talking to women that oppose abortion. Many of them had abortions when they were younger, poorer, single or for whatever reason could not see themselves as ready to be a mother. Now that they are older and in better positions to have children, they decide they are against abortion and want to deny others the option. How many of them would have been able to obtain the security of education, employment and marriage had they been caring for a child? I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-life and I want each life to have the best possible chance of becoming it's best self. Sometimes the best outcomes conflict with one another. Sometimes a woman decides to have the child and in doing so, neither the child nor the mother have a chance at being their best self. It should be up to each woman to decide what she is capable of and willing to do in event of pregnancy and everyone else should stay out of it unless invited in.

    ReplyDelete