Pro-life victory in US Senate

american%20indian.jpgThis morning the US Senate voted 52-42 to ban Indian Health Service funds from being used for abortions except to save a mother's life, or for rape or incest of a minor.

This has been long-standing US policy since 1982, when President Reagan closed a loophole and Congress later agreed, in conjunction with the Hyde Amendment for Medicaid funding.

But the fix has never been permanent. The House must also pass the measure, although a DC insider noted, "I doubt the House will take up this measure anytime soon."

Democrats voting yes...

Landrieu
Bayh
Reid
Casey
Salazar
Byrd
Johnson
Nelson (NE)

Republicans voting no...

Snowe
Specter
Collins

Clinton, McCain, and Obama were absent. See how your senator voted here.


Comments:

So, does this actually result in keeping funds from being used to slaughter babies on Indian reservations in the end?

I ask because Alito voted FOR allowing such funds to be used in the case of rape without requiring any proof to be given showing that the mom was raped years before he got nominated to the Supreme Court while serving on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read about that here and also 5 other pro-abortion decisions that the allegedly pro-life judge Alito gave during his time on the circuit court.

http://shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html#AlitoReportCard

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 26, 2008 12:44 PM


Complete story on the Senate vote at http://www.lifenews.com/nat3756.html

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 26, 2008 1:51 PM


So a native American woman shouldnt be allowed an abortion if she's raped?

Posted by: TexasRed at February 26, 2008 1:59 PM


Indeed.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 26, 2008 2:13 PM


IHS will still pay if she's raped, under this new proposal. And as Zeke points out, there's no way (or desire) to prove or disprove rape if a woman claims it. So, Native American women on reservations can still have their IHS abortions.

So, as Jill says, "another pro-life victory."

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2008 2:14 PM


This attitude towards women is not a 'victory' of any kind. A couple of months ago NPR had a news piece on abortion on reservations - seems when a woman is raped very little is typically done. The reservation police have no jurisdiction outside the reservation and have limited resources on the reservation. The police outside the reservation frequently seem disinterested. Women dont report rape because it doesnt do any good and because of the public humiliation.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 26, 2008 3:36 PM


TR,

It seems the problems for women on the reservation who are raped include indifference, limited resources, lack of assistance of any kind, public humiliation, and a rapist who's free to victimize again and again. What about the risk of AIDS or other STDs? What if the rapist is at increasing risk of finally killing a victim? So where is feminist outrage over this?
If only our society got as emotional, repulsed, and outraged over circumstances such as these as it does over the rare pregnancy that results from rape, instead of putting the woman on the abortion table and patting oursevles on the back for our "concern".

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 4:10 PM


Mary,
Do you have your own prolife blog? I could easily get just as addicted to you as to Jill!! :)

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2008 5:39 PM


Mary, don't you know abortion fixes everything? You don't have to try to find the rapist if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the rape! You don't have to jail the pedophile if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the abuse! You don't have to jail the battering husband or boyfriend if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the violence!

Abortion! It fixes everything!

Posted by: Christina at February 26, 2008 6:05 PM


Carla

Thank you for your kind remarks but no I don't and wouldn't know where to begin. I find Jill's blog addicting and the people on it interesting and challenging. I must admit I could exercise and clean house a little more religiously, but this is a lot more fun!!:):)

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 6:21 PM


LOL

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2008 6:22 PM


Christina,

Thank you for the reminder. Of course abortion will solve all problems and remedy every injustice. I don't know how I could so foolishly forget!

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 6:23 PM



Isn't that little girl just a doll? She's so darn cute! Those eyes. Oh me and my eye fixation again:)

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 6:25 PM


Mary, don't you know abortion fixes everything? You don't have to try to find the rapist if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the rape! You don't have to jail the pedophile if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the abuse! You don't have to jail the battering husband or boyfriend if the baby is aborted, because abortion erases the violence!

Abortion! It fixes everything!

Posted by: Christina at February 26, 2008 6:05 PM

.........................................

Abuse often starts when a woman becomes pregnant. Clearly in hindsight, a nice quite abortion could have prevented abuse. Gestating keeps the victim firmly attached to the abusive. Obviously neither aborting or gestating will 'fix' anything. The woman isn't the one needing 'fixing'. She is the one with the right to determine the course of her own life. Something a rapist cares nothing about. I fail to see how forcing a woman to gestate the product of an act of violence to be any kind of 'fix'. Since fixing things seems to be of importance to you.

Posted by: Sally at February 26, 2008 7:29 PM


TR,

It seems the problems for women on the reservation who are raped include indifference, limited resources, lack of assistance of any kind, public humiliation, and a rapist who's free to victimize again and again. What about the risk of AIDS or other STDs? What if the rapist is at increasing risk of finally killing a victim? So where is feminist outrage over this?
If only our society got as emotional, repulsed, and outraged over circumstances such as these as it does over the rare pregnancy that results from rape, instead of putting the woman on the abortion table and patting oursevles on the back for our "concern".
Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 4:10 PM
.................................................................

Mary, perhaps if you read something other than this blog, you might find that feminists have always been outraged over rape and the traditional white men's societal need to blame the victim.
But this article is about Fed funding for Native Americans. While the Feds will only fund abortions under their choice of circumstances, the tribes may provide what they can afford to provide. Wealthier tribes will fund what they deem necessary while the poorer tribes will do without. These necessary things will vary from tribe to tribe. You really don't get a say so unless you are a member of a particular tribe. Even then, you cannot influence decisions for every tribe.

Posted by: Sally at February 26, 2008 7:45 PM


Sally,

Please. The victim is supposed to accomodate the abuser? Its like the argument that says a woman wouldn't be raped if she had just worn something different.
A person doesn't suddenly turn into an abuser because of pregnancy and won't be cured of their abusive tendencies by abortion. What is needed is protection and counselling for the victim of abuse. You call having an abortion to protect yourself from abuse "freedom of choice"?
Would you give me one example where abortion has captured and punished a rapist? Where it has protected other women from rape? Where it has provided the woman with counselling, support, and compassion? Will it help the woman infected with AIDS?
I maintain that abortion is just society's way of patting itself on the back where the rape victim is concerned.
By the way Sally, where's your outrage over the way reservation rape victims are treated?

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 7:52 PM


Sally,

Spare me this "white man's" nonsense. Rape is universal and knows no racial or ethnic boundaries. I highly doubt its white men raping Native American women on the reservation. Most rapes against white women are committed by white men. Most rapes against black women are committed by black men. And yes Sally I read plenty, thank you.
My point Sally is that there is no concern or assistance for rape victims on the reservation, other than putting them on the abortion table.
To me that is a crime as despicable as rape itself. I would like nothing more than to hear feminist outrage over this.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 8:02 PM


You know I think Chris Rock had it right when he said that nobody has it worse in this country than the American Indian. He asks the audience the last time they saw two indians at the same time. I'm sure most would say "a looong time," if ever.

Amnesty International is greatly involved in the sexual assault and the lack of accountability that American Indian women face. The majority of the time, the perpetrator is white.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 8:23 PM


Spare me this "white man's" nonsense. Rape is universal and knows no racial or ethnic boundaries. I highly doubt its white men raping Native American women on the reservation. Most rapes against white women are committed by white men. Most rapes against black women are committed by black men. And yes Sally I read plenty, thank you.

Actually, Mary, you're wrong.

Amnesty International's study was carried out in 2005 and 2006, drawing on victim interviews, questionnaires submitted to law enforcement officials such as police and prosecutors, and numerous reports. More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.

That quote is from a Washington Post article from April 2007. I will post the link to it in a post following this one, since I don't know if this blog has a lag time when posting links.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2008 8:57 PM


Mary,

Here's a link to the article I quoted in my last post. I hope you read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502778.html

Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2008 8:58 PM


Sally,

Please. The victim is supposed to accomodate the abuser? Its like the argument that says a woman wouldn't be raped if she had just worn something different.

............................................

And you aren't evolved past that thinking. Women were meant to bear children no matter what the circumstances or outcome. They must be mindlessly happy enslaved to their biology. It is the fault of all women that they can get pregnant and they aren't quite a woman if they can't.
.......................................................

A person doesn't suddenly turn into an abuser because of pregnancy and won't be cured of their abusive tendencies by abortion.

......................................................

You haven't done your homework on domestic violence have you. Previously non physically violent control freaks will turn to violence against women when they feel they have lost control over every inch of that woman. Something you would wish to further by demanding gestation rather than the empowerment of choice.

.................................

What is needed is protection and counselling for the victim of abuse. You call having an abortion to protect yourself from abuse "freedom of choice"?

..........................................

Damn skippy. You profess to be a health professional yet have absolutely no professional knowledge of how abuse is dealt with medically or legally. Shame on you!

................................

Would you give me one example where abortion has captured and punished a rapist?

....................................

Give me one example of how gestating the spawn of Satan has incarcerated Satan.
..........................................................

Where it has protected other women from rape? Where it has provided the woman with counselling, support, and compassion? Will it help the woman infected with AIDS?
I maintain that abortion is just society's way of patting itself on the back where the rape victim is concerned.

..............................................

I maintain that the assertion that every woman must gestate every pregnancy no matter what, unless you say so, is nothing less than rape. You wish to wrest control of her body away from her to suit your desire. The concept is nothing less than abusive.
........................................

By the way Sally, where's your outrage over the way reservation rape victims are treated?

..........................................

Treated by whom Mary? The Feds? Their concept that only raped children should be allowed an abortion? Like raped adult women deserve to be raped? All adult women? Or just adult Indian women?

Posted by: Sally at February 26, 2008 9:04 PM


Sally,

Spare me this "white man's" nonsense. Rape is universal and knows no racial or ethnic boundaries. I highly doubt its white men raping Native American women on the reservation. Most rapes against white women are committed by white men. Most rapes against black women are committed by black men. And yes Sally I read plenty, thank you.
My point Sally is that there is no concern or assistance for rape victims on the reservation, other than putting them on the abortion table.
To me that is a crime as despicable as rape itself. I would like nothing more than to hear feminist outrage over this.
Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 8:02 PM
.............................................

Mary, you are clearly unqualified to speak for any tribe's care for victims of rape. You are highly unlikely to be privy to such information. Have some respect.
Feminists have as much influence as Bible thumping evangelicals to societies without the need for either.

Posted by: Sally at February 26, 2008 9:15 PM


Mary, that information can also be found on Amnesty's website.

http://www.amnestyusa.org

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 9:17 PM


http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/Womens_Human_Rights/page.do?id=1011012&n1=3&n2=39

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 9:19 PM


Yes Sally
Let's have some respect.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2008 9:37 PM


PIP,

You are to be commended for the work you do with Amnesty International and thank you for the articles.
I was referring to Native American women on the reservation only. It would seem a non-native rapist would stand out like a sore thumb. The accounts I read involved native rapists and the women's fear in reporting, etc. If I drew the wrong conclusion on this I stand corrected. My apologies.
The slide show does an excellent job of displaying the issue of underreporting, lack of police coverage, jurisdictional problems, lack of prosecution, and rapists free to victimize again. Its despicable. It certainly displays the point that abortion is not a magic solution and is all too often society's way of thinking its doing the victim some great service, when its in fact its only washing its hands of her and the serious issues this video brings to light.
The violence against women here and around the world is beyond words. Keep up your good work and dedication.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 10:03 PM


Sally,

Spare me any lecture on domestic violence. My introduction to it began when my mother was pushed down a landing when she was 5 months pregnant with me. I spent my childhood in it and I have little need of "homework" on the subject.
Your notion that abuse can be turned on or off shows your need to do some homework.
My argument had been and remains the despicable treatment of rape victims in our society. PIP linked to an excellent video pertaining to Native American women in particular.
Overall, most rapes go unreported, too many victims do not get the support and help needed, too many rapist are free to victimize again and again, and all too often victims are subject to ridicule and humiliation. Nothing enrages me like comments about how "she asked for it", "she was no saint", etc. Treatment of and attitudes toward rape victims, whatever their race or ethnicity, is still neanderthal.
I remember when a judge in a major city near me turned a twice accused rapist free on his own recognizance because he didn't think the slug was violent. Well, when he brutally murdered his third victim, a woman he forced off the road and raped, he was finally imprisoned. How many more women like her would still be alive if the crime of rape had been treated more seriously? I know of a couple of little girls in Florida who would still be alive had child rape been treated a little more seriously.
That's the real issue Sally, and it won't be solved by abortion. As I told PIP, that's only society's way of washing its hands of the rape victim.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 10:23 PM


"He asks the audience the last time they saw two indians at the same time."

PIP, what's the context of this? I don't understand. Maybe because where I live we have many Native Americans and I see two (or two hundred) together all the time. Is he saying there aren't many left? or they don't hang out together?

I'm missing someting

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2008 10:42 PM


Aw thanks Mary ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 10:42 PM


PIP,

I can well remember when the most blatant racism and rape were intertwined.
Your white wife being impregnated by a "n-----" or "drunken Indian" was often the argument used to support legalization of abortion. I understand that the late Georgia governor, segregationist Lester Maddox, when asked in the late 60's to support legal abortion, was asked by the local medical society how he would feel about the white woman impregnated by a black rapist. Apparently being raped by a white man wasn't quite so bad. Also, no similar "concern" was ever expressed for the non-white victims of rape.
I read a study that ironically showed that while the majority of rapes against black women and white women were committed by black men and white men respectively, there was in fact a higer percentage of black women raped by white men as opposed to white women raped by black.
You'd be surprised at the people shocked when I told them this fact. I don't have more up to date stats but I found that study very interesting, especially in an era when it was accepted as "fact" that non white men were most likely to be sexual predators. This fear, ignorance and prejudice was all too often played
upon to promote legal abortion. Disgusting.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 10:44 PM


PIP,

Thank YOU!

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 10:45 PM


"PIP, what's the context of this? I don't understand. Maybe because where I live we have many Native Americans and I see two (or two hundred) together all the time. Is he saying there aren't many left? or they don't hang out together?

I'm missing someting"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiJVK7m6IZk

It's about 6 minutes in.
I grew up in Oklahoma so there are plenty of Indians there too, but on the whole they are quite the minority in this country; I think that is what he is addressing.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 10:54 PM


PIP, thanks. Got it. True enough

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2008 11:05 PM


Mary that is disgusting!

Hopefully we will help make it better soon!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 11:10 PM


Mary if you are interested in other human rights issues I can hook you up!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2008 11:19 PM


PIP,

Thank you. As you've probably noticed, nothing sets my teeth on edge like sexual violence against women and society's neanderthal mentality toward sexual assault victims. Any links or info you can hook me up to would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 11:34 PM


http://amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/rape-ever-present-danger-darfurs-women

Here is an action concerning women in Darfur. I think you have to register, but it's free.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 12:08 AM


http://www.amnestyusa.org/Womens_Human_Rights/The_International_Violence_Against_Women_Act/page.do?id=1051201&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1504

This is great news-something I liked Joe Biden for (plus he is moderate on the abortion issue).

Amnesty USA has a great feature on their website so that urgent actions can be sent online. If you want to thank them, click "Take Action" and you can submit a note.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 12:14 AM


One last one for now, lol.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Womens_Human_Rights/Action/page.do?id=YIA0039035000E&n1=3&n2=39

Urgent Actions are the basis of Amnesty International and this page shows the current urgent actions available in the USA site just on women's human rights. (I don't think you have to register for these).

I will keep you updated as the campaign continues!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 12:17 AM


Pip,
Here is one on Amnesty International and their changing stance on abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2226.html

Posted by: Carla at February 27, 2008 6:47 AM


Carla,

The stance is NOT to make it a universal human right.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 8:08 AM


Decriminalization is not the same thing. They have no stance on countries that have pro-life laws. You should look on the Amnesty website if you have any more questions.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 8:08 AM


PIP and Carla,

Thank you both for the articles and info. Definitely something to look into.

Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2008 8:13 AM


Actually let's look at their sexual and reproductive rights policy:

"Forced and child marriage is a violation of girls' and women's sexual and reproductive rights.
Denying women access to reproductive health services is a violation of their reproductive rights. Denying them access to lifesaving obstetric care is a violation of their right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

Sound okay?

"Forced abortions or sterilizations carried out by family planning officials or others acting in an official capacity violate reproductive rights and are grave violations of physical and mental integrity amounting to torture."

Sounds good to me!

"Obstructing rape survivors' access to legal abortion services is a violation of their sexual and reproductive rights.
Women must have access to safe and legal abortion services in cases of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest.
Imprisonment or other criminal sanctions for seeking or having an abortion is a violation of women's reproductive rights.
Women must have access to safe and legal abortion services where continuation of pregnancy poses a risk to their life or grave risk to their health."

The thing I disagree with is the ones about rape, but most countries that have anti-abortion laws DO allow abortions in case of rape or incest.
Many pro-lifers and organization support abortion when pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life, and many do not support criminalization of women. Feminists for Life has no problem with the decriminalization policy (they do have problem with the rape one, though, which I agree with).

"Individuals have the right to seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality and reproduction without unreasonable restrictions. They have the right to access to information and services regarding sexual and reproductive health, including in relation to prevention of sexually transmitted infections."

Sounds good, we don't want AIDS spreading like wildfire.

"Women have the right to not be denied maternal health care, which should be accessible, affordable, adequate and of sufficiently high quality, taking into account their cultural needs. They have the right to access health care without discrimination."

I don't think this is a problem.

Where in this does it say that "abortion is universal right and access should be granted regardless of the reason?"
It doesn't.

Also. Since this vote was recent, it won't be acted upon for quite a while. In fact many people consider it something that could be tweaked a little bit and I think that Amnesty will consider their criticisms in the future.

Sounds good?

Oh and here:

"Amnesty International does not take a position on whether abortion should be legal or
whether it is right or wrong. Amnesty does not counsel individuals as to whether they
should continue or terminate a pregnancy, nor will Amnesty campaign generally for
abortion. The policy allows Amnesty International to address specific issues associated
with abortion to the extent that these are directly relevant to the organization’s work, such
as the right to health, and violence against women.
International
law is silent on the question of when life begins and Amnesty International takes no
position on this question. The organization recognizes and respects the diversity of
religious viewpoints on abortion and believes that one of its greatest strengths has been
the solidarity forged among people of diverse beliefs who nonetheless share a
commitment to ending human suffering. In this spirit, the organization’s leadership
believes that its members and supporters can continue to collaborate on specific human
rights issues without having to change or challenge their moral standpoint or views on
issues such as abortion. It is in this spirit that Amnesty International calls on its members
and supporters to work with the organization to end violence against women, which often
lies at the root of many unwanted pregnancies.

4. Does AI promote “abortion as human right”?
No. Some media reports and individuals have claimed that AI promotes a “human right to abortion.” This grossly
misrepresents AI’s policy on sexual and reproductive rights.

AI takes no position on whether abortion is right or wrong, nor on whether or not abortion should be legal. The
particular right AI works to protect is the right of all women to be free of any form of coercion, discrimination or
violence as they make and put into effect informed decisions regarding the regulation of their fertility.

AI’s sexual and reproductive rights policy emphasizes access to contraceptive services and to sexual health
information so that the risk of unwanted pregnancies can be reduced.

5. Is it accurate to say that Amnesty International has a neutral position on the abortion question?
AI takes no position on whether abortion is right or wrong. AI has long opposed forced abortion, sterilization and
contraception in all circumstances. AI currently does not take a position on laws regulating the termination of
pregnancy other than in cases when pregnancy results from rape, sexual assault, or incest or where it poses a risk to
the woman’s life or a grave risk to her health.


Here is the FFL response, which I agree with. Notice how they realize that AI isn't supporting abortion as a "universal human right."

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 8:51 AM


http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/amnesty-reconsider-position.htm

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 8:53 AM


PIP,

Very informative and interesting posts. When abortion was illegal in the US exceptions were always made for the life of the mother and often included fetal defect, rape and incest. Of course there were people who got around the laws, as people always have and will. You won't get perfection, but it sounds like AI makes a serious effort and I can support much of what you posted.

I recall the movie Schindler's List. I also remember arguments that said in effect, so what? He only saved a few thousand when millions were dying. It would have been preferable that he make no effort at all?

Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2008 10:27 AM


Mary, exactly!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2008 10:33 AM


Sally,

Spare me any lecture on domestic violence. My introduction to it began when my mother was pushed down a landing when she was 5 months pregnant with me. I spent my childhood in it and I have little need of "homework" on the subject.
Your notion that abuse can be turned on or off shows your need to do some homework.
My argument had been and remains the despicable treatment of rape victims in our society. PIP linked to an excellent video pertaining to Native American women in particular.
Overall, most rapes go unreported, too many victims do not get the support and help needed, too many rapist are free to victimize again and again, and all too often victims are subject to ridicule and humiliation. Nothing enrages me like comments about how "she asked for it", "she was no saint", etc. Treatment of and attitudes toward rape victims, whatever their race or ethnicity, is still neanderthal.
I remember when a judge in a major city near me turned a twice accused rapist free on his own recognizance because he didn't think the slug was violent. Well, when he brutally murdered his third victim, a woman he forced off the road and raped, he was finally imprisoned. How many more women like her would still be alive if the crime of rape had been treated more seriously? I know of a couple of little girls in Florida who would still be alive had child rape been treated a little more seriously.
That's the real issue Sally, and it won't be solved by abortion. As I told PIP, that's only society's way of washing its hands of the rape victim.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 10:23 PM
............................................................

Well Mary, since you know so much about DV, you know that I am correct in stating that physical abuse often rears it's ugly head for the first time when a woman is pregnant. Women are more vulnerable when pregnant on a number of levels. You also know that abusives are more than capable of turning off and on the abuse to achieve their goal of control through brainwashing. You've done your homework and know all of this yet deny it's truth. Why?

Posted by: Sally at February 27, 2008 9:19 PM


Yes Sally
Let's have some respect.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2008 9:37 PM
...................................

For whom Carla? Who do you respect and why?

Posted by: Sally at February 27, 2008 9:24 PM


PIP,

Thank you. As you've probably noticed, nothing sets my teeth on edge like sexual violence against women and society's neanderthal mentality toward sexual assault victims. Any links or info you can hook me up to would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: Mary at February 26, 2008 11:34 PM
.........................................

If you are really concerned, why not volunteer at your local DV shelter? Get your hands dirty Mary. Be a DV advocate. Hold the hands of the women who have to humiliate themselves to receive the tiniest bit of protection from or recompense for damage done by violent offenders. Start a blog. Get politically active.
Start with why none of your anti choice candidates feel any kind of necessity to address the millions of women beaten murdered and sexually abused by men that have professed to love them each and every year.

Posted by: Sally at February 27, 2008 9:41 PM


Sally,

No abuse does not necessarily first rear its ugly head when a woman becomes pregnant. Abuse can begin very subtlely, constant criticism, denigrating comments, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and gradually increase. Physical abuse can begin very abruptly as it did when my mother was suddenly slapped by my father. She wasn't pregnant. In fact she already had two children. There had been emotional abuse preceding the physical. To suggest that pregnancy somehow causes abuse is as absurd as suggesting that not keeping a clean house causes abuse. The problem is with the abuser, its not the victim who must meet a certain standard to keep her abuser in check. Certainly a pregnant woman is vulnerable. So is a child. So is an elderly person. So is a disabled person.
To suggest that a woman should have an abortion to protect herself from abuse is as outrageous as saying she should properly iron her husband's shirts to protect herself from abuse. You relieve the abuser of any responsiblity for his actions.

Uh, Sally, how do you know what volunteer work I do or don't do? Part of my work with CPCs involved domestic violence. When I worked in the ER I cared for abused women.
Do you know of any pro-life legislators that have opposed domestic violence legislation and shelters? It was pro-life people in our community who pushed legislation, eventually signed by the governor, to enable minor pregnant girls who are in danger of being abused to seek shelter in mother's and infants homes without a court order.
Oh, speaking of politicians, I can think of one PC one in particular who suffered delusions of being a college boy and while out romping with his nephew, one would think a 60 year old senator a tad old for such shenanigans, a woman charged she was raped by the nephew. The very rich PC uncle of course got the best lawyers and the victim never had a prayer against his power and money. To the surprise of no one, the nephew got off the hook.
Then there's the PC former president accused of rape. The woman claimed he hit her and then told her to put ice on her eye when he walked out the door. Hey, who says he's not a sensitive guy?

You were saying something about politicians and violence against women Sally?

Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2008 11:00 PM