The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Martina

I'll go a step further. You have a vagina? No?

Shut the Fuck Up.

[Toughy]

don't have the link...........heard it on some femi-nazi liberal radio talk show

Apparently Aiken said on some Fox show during his various explanations and so-called apology that sometimes women lie and say they were raped when they were not....that's what he meant by 'forcible' and also 'legitimate'....

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Toughy

don't have the link...........heard it on some femi-nazi liberal radio talk show

Apparently Aiken said on some Fox show during his various explanations and so-called apology that sometimes women lie and say they were raped when they were not....that's what he meant by 'forcible' and also 'legitimate'....

You're quite correct, it was on Hannity, saw it at the gym today.

[Licious]

Really good to see this thread posted. Assault on women and their rights, in any form, going back to the dark ages in any sense, is not acceptable, and is a sign of a greater problem. Glad everyone is discussing this.

[AtLast]

Feels like the Phyllis Shaffley days are on us again.

[Martina]

[Kobi]

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973





And yet, this is exactly what the GOP has been doing.

[always2late]

ENOUGH!! I have HAD it with these fucking assholes and their "definitions" of rape! Rape is "another method of conception"??? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you lying, backward, teabilly, douchebag!! ANY woman who votes for these fucking idiots is a self-loathing moron!! (excuse my language..I am furious and have lost ALL my filters when it comes to these pathetic excuses for human beings!)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/2...of-conception/

[*Anya*]

I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole and the clock has been turned back to the 1950's.

I just can't believe my eyes and ears anymore. It is like insanity overload and I just want to turn it off.

Where is the outrage of the women that would have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy as a result of rape? Are they truly that apathetic?

Oh god for the marches and political activism today, of the 60's and 70's! I just do not get all of this.

Do I still live in America?

Maybe I am dreaming.

Can someone wake me up please, because it is actually a nightmare.

[Kobi]

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

Transcript:

REPORTER: You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

KING: Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

King’s office said he had been taken out of context.

“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”

Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption. “That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said.


Check out the raw as well as the broadcast version.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...utory-rape.php

------------------


So, if you were "raped forcibly", he doesnt want you to have access to federal funds to pay for an abortion.

Yet, he is ok with abortion funds for statutory rape and incest.

So, he is pro-life except when it involves pedophilia.

[Kobi]

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. ~Edward Abbey

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

Transcript:

REPORTER: You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

KING: Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

King’s office said he had been taken out of context.

“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”

Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption. “That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said.


Check out the raw as well as the broadcast version.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...utory-rape.php

------------------


So, if you were "raped forcibly", he doesnt want you to have access to federal funds to pay for an abortion.

Yet, he is ok with abortion funds for statutory rape and incest.

So, he is pro-life except when it involves pedophilia.

Sometimes I just want to slap the stupid out them

[always2late]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole and the clock has been turned back to the 1950's.

I just can't believe my eyes and ears anymore. It is like insanity overload and I just want to turn it off.

Where is the outrage of the women that would have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy as a result of rape? Are they truly that apathetic?

Oh god for the marches and political activism today, of the 60's and 70's! I just do not get all of this.

Do I still live in America?

Maybe I am dreaming.

Can someone wake me up please, because it is actually a nightmare.

There is outrage. There are protests, and marches, and grassroots activism...all of which is being virtually IGNORED by the media outlets! That is the part of all this that I don't understand, that is the part that perplexes and confuses me probably about as much as it does you. I can understand Fox "News" ignoring the efforts of women to counteract this insanity...but every other major network?? There was a march in Washington, DC on August 18. Did you hear about it? I'm guessing that you probably didn't...and I'm not saying that to sound snarky. I'm just amazed that there is basically a media blackout regarding the women protesting against this insanity.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by always2late

There is outrage. There are protests, and marches, and grassroots activism...all of which is being virtually IGNORED by the media outlets! That is the part of all this that I don't understand, that is the part that perplexes and confuses me probably about as much as it does you. I can understand Fox "News" ignoring the efforts of women to counteract this insanity...but every other major network?? There was a march in Washington, DC on August 18. Did you hear about it? I'm guessing that you probably didn't...and I'm not saying that to sound snarky. I'm just amazed that there is basically a media blackout regarding the women protesting against this insanity.

Thank you for this info. I didnt know about this. Apparently word was spread via social networks. I really have to learn how to use facebook.

The event was sponsored by We Are Women Interesting reading.

There is another event on the 26th called Womens Equality Day sponsored by WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend).

The mass media doesnt broadcast this stuff anymore. God forbid we, the people, might see civil unrest and other stuff threatening to the status quo.

[always2late]

I'm going to attach some links to some great organizations.

http://www.waronwomen.com/RockTheSlutVote/

http://www.unitewomen.org/

http://feminist.org/

The above also have Facebook pages that you can link to through their websites. I also want to mention an organization called "Vagistan" which doesn't have a website as of yet, but does have a Facebook page and a Twitter account. There are also the organizations that everyone has heard of (or at least I hope they have): NARAL, NOW, League of Women Voters, etc.. that post daily on Facebook.

[Licious]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

Transcript:

REPORTER: You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

KING: Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

King’s office said he had been taken out of context.

“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”

Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption. “That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said.


Check out the raw as well as the broadcast version.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...utory-rape.php

------------------


So, if you were "raped forcibly", he doesnt want you to have access to federal funds to pay for an abortion.

Yet, he is ok with abortion funds for statutory rape and incest.

So, he is pro-life except when it involves pedophilia.

The things these crazy tea party politicians say. It's insane.

I mean am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I am taking crazy pills here! *last line is from Zoolander, yes*

[Kobi]

From NARAL:

For years, the opponents of women’s reproductive rights have floated some dangerously misguided ideas about the female body and reproduction.

Lately it’s become clear that their junk science, wishful thinking, and outright propaganda have been taken up by all manner of anti-choice politicians nationwide.

One of the main sources of this harmful misinformation is Dr. Jack Willke, former president of the National Right to Life Committee, often described as the godfather of the anti-choice movement. Just take a look at what he says about pregnancy from rape:

"To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma … than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."

Dr. Willke, is a medical doctor. But he has been preaching dangerous propaganda to the anti-choice movement for decades about rape survivors “defenses” against becoming pregnant. Earlier this week he told the New York Times that “sperm, if deposited in [a rape survivor’s] vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

[Nomad]

[Kobi]

DENVER—The nation's only pending ballot measure to ban abortion in all circumstances has failed to advance to voters in Colorado.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced Wednesday that backers of the divisive "personhood" amendment fell about 3,900 valid signatures short of the some 86,000 needed.

The rejection was a major setback for abortion foes in the home state of Personhood USA, which said the Colorado proposal was the only measure pending for ballots this fall. Other initiatives are aimed for future years but not this fall, Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said Wednesday.

Personhood proposals go farther than other proposed abortion bans because they would give fertilized embryos all the rights of a born human. They would ban embryonic stem-cell research and some fertility treatments.

The measures haven't been backed by other abortion opponents or the Catholic church.

Personhood proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by Colorado voters in 2010 and 2008. Similar measures have been rejected by voters in Mississippi and by several state legislatures.

Colorado has a relatively low threshold for petitioning measures onto ballots, making it a hotbed for proposed citizen initiatives. The rejection of the personhood measure leaves only one citizen initiative on ballots: a proposal to buck federal law and legalize marijuana without a doctor's recommendation for adults over 21.

Personhood USA vowed to fight the Colorado rejection in court. The group argues some of the signatures were improperly rejected, including some on which a notary public changed a date.

"We are going to be filing to have those ballot signatures recounted, and we are confident personhood will be on ballots this fall," Mason said.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, which campaigned against the two earlier personhood proposals and was raising money to do it again this year, lauded the rejection. Spokeswoman Monica McCafferty said support for the idea is eroding.

"This year they're not even getting people to sign on to the concept," she said. "Hopefully that signals that Coloradans understand the concept, that they don't like the outcome of what this would mean."

The political implications of Colorado's personhood decision were immediately apparent. Democrats say the unpopular measure has helped motivate female voters, and they immediately scrambled to connect Republicans to the measure even though it's not on ballots.

A Democratic suburban Denver congressman being challenged by well-funded Republican Joe Coors reminded voters that Coors once gave money to personhood backers.

"Regardless of this initiative appearing on the ballot, this doesn't change Joe Coors' extreme views and past funding and support for efforts to restrict a woman's ability to make her own medical decisions," read a statement from the spokeswoman for Rep. Ed Perlmutter.

Coors volleyed back with a statement that voters are more interested in talking about the economy. He distanced himself from the abortion measure.

"Joe's stated that he wouldn't endorse personhood, and it's clear Colorado voters have already spoken on this issue -- twice now," said his spokeswoman, Michelle Yi.

A Democratic strategist who worked to fight the previous Colorado personhood measures said Democrats will still campaign on abortion this year, even without a personhood proposal on ballots. She pointed out that Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan opposes abortion in all cases and sponsored a federal version of a personhood measure.

"What began as a fringe issue in Colorado in 2008 has become a mainstream issue for the Republican Party in 2012," Laura Chapin said. "When you've got Paul Ryan on the ticket, I would say yes, this is going to be a major issue in the campaign for women voters."

The head of Colorado's Democratic party put out a statement Wednesday saying Ryan and other Republicans still have an "extreme agenda" aimed at ending abortion rights.

Mason insisted personhood ballot proposals draw social conservatives to the polls as much as they draw abortion-rights supporters. She said the rejection of Colorado's personhood amendment could hurt Mitt Romney, because some social conservatives find him too moderate and may stay home without personhood on ballots.

The presidential campaigns did not immediately return calls seeking comment on the Colorado personhood decision.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...--+Latest+news

[Kobi]

Massachusetts’ leading pro-life group says it is supporting Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, while Brown is trying to distance himself from the anti-abortion wing of his party.

Since the firestorm around Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's comments about rape and abortion, Brown has been emphasizing his pro-choice credentials. Here’s his wife, Gail Huff, at a recent campaign stop:

Scott is pro-choice. Has been forever. He’s always been very, very clear about his pro-choice view. Like he said, he has two young daughters, 24 and 21 years old. He understands more than anyone that women have a right to make their own decisions,” she said.

So it must have been awkward when Massachusetts Citizens for Life decided to throw its support behind Brown.

Anne Fox, the group's president, said Brown's voting record was more in line with her organization's views. “What he has voted on so far, yes, it’s been pro-life. So we would prefer to see our people vote with Scott Brown,” she said.

Megan Amundson of NARAL Pro-Choice, on the other side of the issue, saw some irony in the situation: “This is the one thing that Massachusetts Citizens for Life and NARAL Pro Choice of Massachusetts do agree on — is that Scott Brown may call himself pro-choice, but in reality he voted pro-choice only 1 in 5 times.”

In the past, Brown’s votes have angered both sides of the abortion debate. In 2007, he voted to create a 35-foot buffer zone to keep protesters away from abortion clinics. But he also co-sponsored a bill that would require women to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion and be provided with pictures and information on the development of their fetus.

Brown isn’t rejecting Massachusetts Citizens for Life's support. But on the campaign trail, he maintains he’s a moderate pro-choice Republican.

http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/pro-lif...hes-pro-choice

---------------------------------

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin is still campaigning — and his controversial comments about rape are continuing to impact the high-profile U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.

On Aug. 21, Sen. Scott Brown sent a letter to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, asking him to drop the anti-abortion plank in the party platform.

Peter Blute, the deputy chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said sending the letter was a brave move. "I think it’s very rare that a senator stands up and speaks against a plank in his own party’s platform."

But Megan Amundson, the executive vice president of NARAL Pro Choice, said the letter didn't go far enough.

“The letter doesn’t do anything. He’s been very clear the letter is all he’s willing to do. That’s he’s not willing to go to the convention to speak about for this or fight for this, that’s he’s not willingly to actively stand up for women’s rights,” she said.

Brown said on Aug. 22 that he wouldn’t be taking the abortion fight to the GOP convention in Tampa this weekend.

“I’m going down Thursday as I’ve always planned before this came up," he said. "They know my position. It’s up to others to join forces. The Olympia Snowes and Collinses need to join forces.”

In the past, other big-name Massachusetts Republicans did more than write letters about abortion. In 1992, then-Gov. Bill Weld delivered a strong pro-choice speech at the Republican Convention in Houston. He tried to launch a floor fight but didn’t have enough votes.

Brown’s challenger Elizabeth Warren has capitalized on this issue. All this week she’s been hammering Brown on abortion, contraception and equal pay.

http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/scott-b...not-far-enough