HuffPo asks, “Women of the Tea Party: Who are you, and what do you want?”
What a funny but telling title, the sort of question asked only in war zones or when spotting aliens.
Had I received that query in person I would have responded in kind, “Who goes there, friend or foe?”
But in this case I was pretty sure I already knew, given the news outlet from whence the question came. And sure enough, I wasn’t long into reading the piece when learning the answer was clearly foe, with malicious intent.
The writer was liberal feminist Peggy Drexler, assistant prof of psychology at Cornell Medical School, who wondered if the Tea Party women will come the liberal feminist way on social issues:
But it’s fair to assume there aren’t many coming out of this base who will champion issues like gay marriage, choice, and single parent families. Gay marriage and choice are clearly high on Sarah Palin’s list of American evils. Single parent families get a pass for obvious reasons. But as Colleen Campbell [writes]… single mothers are “strong enough and smart enough”… to “handle an unplanned pregnancy”, while continuing to pursue education and a career. In other words: when the going gets tough, the tough keep the baby.
So my question to the women of the Tea Party is this. If you take back America from the forces of big government, big spending and big taxes, do you plan to share it with the teenage girl who is unprepared to raise a child, with the gay couple who want the simple right to marry, and with families who may not fit your own definitions?
Well, duh, Peggy, isn’t that why the Tea Party germinated in the 1st place? In opposition to your ideology?
I’ll leave it to others to handle the homosexual issue, but I’ll address Peggy’s abortion concerns.
So hey, Peggy, back at you, how are you currently helping “the teenage girl who is unprepared to raise a child” by any other way than recommending she kill it? Are you saying the value of a person is dependent on affordability or convenience? What do you want us to do with you when you’re a crabby old senile feminist? Are you pro-choice for your future phase of life?
As a matter of fact, Peggy, there are over 3,000 pregnancy care centers throughout the United States already helping teenage girls financially, physically, and educationally – free of charge, during pregnancy and long after, funded soley by donations. We also adopt and provide foster care.
That as compared to 1,000 abortion mills that charge $350 to $2k and up per.
Yes, Tea Party women believe women are uniquely maternal. You mention the term “momma grizzlies” in your piece, so you understand our perspective that women should be encouraged to protect their children, not kill them, as you believe.
We believe in the equal right to life of all females, Peggy. You don’t. Since you support abortion, you support killing females.
Furthermore, you certainly know abortion is used specifically to target little girls. What are you doing about that, Peggy? Actually, can you do anything about that? I’ll answer that. No. Since preborns are not human in your book, you can’t say anything about this form of sexism without exposing yourself as a big fat lying liberal feminist hypocrite.
But back to the title of your piece. Its arrogance makes me laugh.
You still think you’re queens of the hill.
In other words: when the going gets tough, the tough keep the baby.
Wait, shouldn’t that read : when the going gets tough, the tough keep the blob of cells?
Ha ha, “choice.” Yeah, I’m really against CHOICE. I swear. So irritating. If abortion is so wonderful and so important, why can’t they just SAY it? Why?
AWESOME JILL!! Just love it.
I can not stand the smug snobbery of one in academia. Certainly not all academics have this attitude, but the worst and most vile tend to be academics. Looking down from their ivory tower on those silly little tea-partiers. I am not by any means a tea-party person, but the smugness by which they are addressed by the “academic elite” is appalling.
Bravo, Jill. I love your plucky spirit!
Tell us how you really feel! You may get another nomination for Worst Person in the World!!! :)
Love it.
Hey everyone! Sorry this is a little off-topic, but wanted to let everyone know that the MARSCH FUER DAS LEBEN 2010 (March for Life) is happening tomorrow in Berlin!!! Pro-lifers are going to march in support of ”a Europe without abortion and euthanasia.”
Sadly I already made plans for the day so I can’t make it, but I am keeping the marchers in my prayers, and ask you to please do the same!
http://www.marsch-fuer-das-leben.de/
Well, I don’t comment often, but I am very pro life, having had 7 children of my own, and grandfather to 17 others.
FTR I am not a tea party person either, but I am sympathetic to their concerns. Actually I’m a democrat (yes, still).
I’m not a Tea Partier, but I love tea and I love parties. How can you form a FAMILY at the same time you KILL CHILDREN? It’s one thing for a couple to be infertile, or simply not to have children, but it’s quite another advocate killing children and then say a family is anything you want it to be. We are all already members of the human family. Stop killing small humans, old humans, sick humans, and depressed humans, then maybe we’ll have something in common. If every teenage girl who got pregnant carried her baby to term, all of the people who wish to adopt would find it much easier. If every teenage girl who got pregnant carried her baby to term, then abusers, manipulators, and predators would find it a lot harder to hide their crimes and keep hurting them.
How many of you believe health is a human right?
I do, but abortion services is not health care. It’s nothing but an elective procedure (ike cosmetic surgery) in the majority of cases and I for one would not expect my tax dollars be used for elective procedures for non-life threatening health conditions.
Rachael C., what about those , thankfully rare, times when the pregnancy is life-threatening for the woman?
cranium
September 17th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I know this wasn’t addressed to me but look up the principle of double effect.
So it’s a matter of choice and opinion Kristen.
Megan, ripping a human child apart is hardly health care. Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not even on the same continent as elective abortion. As Glutes already knows and is just trying to bait us, facts are not opinions. It is a fact that an untreated ectopic pregnancy is a threat to both the mother and the child. If treated, the mother will survive. It is a fact that a mother who elects to have an abortion for financial or relationship reasons is not in life-threatening danger. It is a fact that if a woman is suffering from dangerously high blood pressure, the doctor needs to consider both the mother and child when administering care. It is a fact that inserting a laminaria in a woman who’s blood pressure is approaching deadly levels and then asking her to wait 24-48 hours for a D & X is medical incompetence at best. It is a fact that if a woman is pregnant and her blood pressure is skyrocketing, she goes to the emergency room, NOT PLANNED PARENTHOOD. She needs a cardiologist, not a butcher.
Cranium, as Ninek already said, you are using a bait and switch. When abortion rights advocates advocate for abortion to be included in universal health care, it is for elective abortions, not just for situations where a woman’s health is endangered. Also, pro-choicers have been disingeniously (sp?) using the health endangerment/rape incest argument for less abortion restrictions when their goal is easier access for elective abortions, not the health/rape-incest exceptions which makes up less than 3 percent of total abortions each year (Alan Guttmacher Institute). Also it’s worth noting that leading up to Roe v. Wade and even currently most states have laws with exceptions for health/rape-incest. For ectopic pregnancy, see the principle of double effect. And beyond viability, an emergency C-Section could be preformed or early labor induced and every effort could be made to save mother and baby. And Ninek made a good point, if a woman has a life-threatening health condition, then she probably should be treated in a hospital where she could be under close medical observation verses labororing alone over a two day period in a hotel room while preparing to have the procedure preformed in an outpatient clinic.
cranium
September 17th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
So it’s a matter of choice and opinion Kristen.
So you didn’t look it up then.
I didn’t say anything about abortion. Stanek asked what Drexler has done to support young pregnant womenpIn previous articles, Drexler has expressed support for health care reform (not necessarily the current incarnation, since she wrote the piece before the Patient Protection Act was proposed). Regardless, Drexler acknowledged that a health care system that leaves so many individuals–including women of childbearing age–without this crucial safety net is deeply flawed.
Healthy babies don’t pop out of nowhere. Healthy girl=healthier woman=healthier baby.
Yes I did Kristen – one of the points says ‘the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.’ – so it’s a matter of choosing what one determines to be the least worse outcome. If continuance of the pregnancy would most certainly cause the woman’s death, surely an abortion is appropriate. Or is it your opinion that the woman’s life is worth less than the fetus’s, even if the fetus may not survive because the woman will die before her pregnancy is advanced enough to be viable?
Cranium, 99% of abortions are committed on healthy women and healthy babies. Why do pro-aborts insist on using extremely rare hard-cases? This is not the point at all. Pro-aborts talk about “choice” and then when you’re backed in a corner, you bring out a situation that hardly ever happens. I should hope if a pregnancy threatened my life, my doctor and I would want to save BOTH of us. Stick to the real argument, Cranium. It seems impossible for you to do, but if you try real hard you might be able to.
MaryLee (and Rachael C. with your ‘bait and switch’ comment) all I did was ask the question ‘what about those , thankfully rare, times when the pregnancy is life-threatening for the woman?’ in response to Rachael C.’s statement ‘I for one would not expect my tax dollars be used for elective procedures for non-life threatening health conditions’. That was all.
Yes, MaryLee, I too would hope your doctor would want to save both of you. I only asked about the very rare circumstances when death of the woman is inevitable if the pregnancy continues.
But Cranium, that is not what the pro-abortion movement is about. It is about making sure women abort, for whatever reason, at any point in her pregnancy. Hard cases are extremely rare; there are some sad stories and some really difficult decisions in those very rare cases. But it’s ridiculous, to use that as a crutch, or even a talking point, when the pro-abortion movement is based on lies, manipulation, obfuscation, strawman arguments, and ignorance, especially where science and logic are concerned. It’s really just a bunch of slogans (“reproductive rights”….what the heck does that even MEAN?!) and excuses.
Nagem asked: “How many of you believe health is a human right?”
I believe that health is a human right. I have a right to determine my own health to the limits of my physical circumstances, personal preferences, and my own resources. In other words, I have a right to be as healthy as I can be, and nobody should be able to make me less healthy against my will.
My convictions about the right to health are why I support laws that ban smoking in most public places. As just one example of the principle: Your right to blow smoke ends at my airspace.
However, please note that I do not believe that healthcare is a human right. Healthcare requires more than just non-interference. It requires resources and labor. If I had a right to healthcare, then I would also have the right to compel other people to give me their resources and/or labor. That’s not a right; that’s theft. I don’t have a right to compel doctors and nurses to work for free, nor do I have a right to compel other taxpayers to subsidize my healthcare. There is no right to “free stuff” … not even when the “free stuff” is as important as healthcare.
I suppose I could say that access to healthcare is a human right, but even then I’d have to be very specific about what I mean. Access to healthcare simply means that I should not be turned away because of race, gender, social status, religion, or other such criteria. “Whites-only” hospitals are a Bad Thing, just like any other form of racial discrimination is a Bad Thing. However, access to healthcare still doesn’t mean that I have a right to get free stuff. It just means that I have a right to access whatever healthcare I can afford. Otherwise, we’re right back into that category of theft that I mentioned above….
Here’s an analogy to help explain my position. I also believe that freedom of religion is a human right. As a Christian, I place a very high value on my right to follow Christ. An important part of following Christ is reading His Word. The Bible is essential to living the Christian life. If I can afford a Bible, I should be free to buy it and read it. If I can’t afford a Bible, then perhaps I can find someone who would be willing to help me. (There are lots of ways to get free Bibles! The Gideons are one example.) However, my right to freedom of religion does not equate to a “right” to free Bibles. I do not have a right to demand that a bookstore give me a Bible for free, nor do I have a right to compel other taxpayers to pay for my Bible.
Cranium, Ok to answer your question: if the pregnancy is truly a wanted pregnancy, then there are two patients, not just one and every effort should be made to save both mother and child. Now, rather than just giving general, hypothetical situations, can you please give an example of an actual health condition in which continuing a pregnancy would endanger a woman’s life and a theraputic abortion would be necessary?
Cranium, I stand by my original comment that I would not expect my tax dollars to be used for elective abortions, abortions preformed for socio-economic reasons, which are 97 percent of abortions preformed in this country. The other 3 percent which you refer to are theraputic abortions, I was not refering to or including these abortions in my original comment. However, I did address the issue of theraputic abortions in the comment above this.
It wasn’t a ‘general’ question Rachael C., it was a very specific one.
Yes yes, I know us pro-choicers can sometimes be found ‘to use that as a crutch, or even a talking point, when the pro-abortion movement is based on lies, manipulation, obfuscation, strawman arguments, and ignorance, especially where science and logic are concerned’ but that was not my intent here. I was specifically wondering in regard to the comment ‘I for one would not expect my tax dollars be used for elective procedures for non-life threatening health conditions’ – it’s that simple.
“reproductive rights”….what the heck does that even MEAN?! – well to me it means gaining assistance to have a child if desired (straights and gays), as well as the right to not fall pregnant nor continue a pregnancy if so desired.