Contraception, Anyone?
A lot of niceties are currently in dispute among Democratic candidates, for example on the question of whether health insurance should be mandated. In the meantime, Republicans are off the hook on matters that are surely of interest to voters. One example: the disappeared issue of contraception.
Consider this: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." Thus Mitt Romney on a subject so banal and so revealing, so stunningly revealing, as to have eluded the attention of all the blowhard superintendents of debate at all the Republican encounters so far.
Isn't it past time that not only Romney but the current darling of authenticity, Mike Huckabee, be asked whether they think contraception ought to be curtailed?
Garance Franke-Ruta was all over this question back in September, though the nation's guardians of public morality haven't been paying attention. Here's today's conservative darling, Mike Huckabee:
"I would love to see a human life amendment to our constitution," Huckabee explained in response to a question..."Human life begins at conception."
"Life begins at conception" is code for the extremist anti-choice position that wants hormonal birth control pills, the morning after pill, and intrauterine devices to be outlawed as abortion-inducing agents, or "abortifacients." All these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. They prevent pregnancy, but not conception.
Is it nice to go around proposing to outlaw the most common birth control methods in America?
Calling all pundits.
Well, if all republican debates are handled the way CNN handled the last one, we can forget about the question being asked.
It would be framed more like, "Mr. Huckabee, what is your opinion on giving birth control pills to 12 year-old girls?"
Jan
December 4, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the next repub debate someone should ask which birth control methods these men use.
I'm figuring their wives are practicing abstinence with these cretins.
December 4, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I suspect that the kinds of laws Gitlin is suggesting that the RW of the Repug party might support would require NOT ONLY that Roe v Wade be overturned (an almost certain result if a Repug wins the 08 elections), but the overturning of its predecessor, addressing contraception Griswold v. CT. As for a Constitutional amendment, requiring approval in 3/4 of the states, that is even less probable (in my arrogant opinion -- IMAO).
Still, it is creepy just to think about the implications of any of these people becoming president. And, frankly, polarizing demagogue Giuliani is still awful to contemplate.
It takes folk like these to make someone like Hillary Clinton look good, if only by comparison.
December 4, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Actually, I suspect that the kinds of laws Gitlin is suggesting that the RW of the Repug party might support would require NOT ONLY that Roe v Wade be overturned (an almost certain result if a Repug wins the 08 elections),
If the Dems maintain and expand their control of the Senate the liklihood of another Scalia getting onto the Court is practically nill. And the GOP will be happy to have it that way since they can come back in 2010 and 2012 and use the issue to rally the faithful.
December 5, 2007 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a time when states outlawed the sale of contraceptives to married couples. The rationale of Roe, which Scalia and Thomas oppose, was built on Griswold v Connecticut. This case, in which a right to privacy was defended by Justic Douglas, outlawed bars on the sale of contraception. No one ever seems to force the Republicans to explore theimplications of their views.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 5, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Making abortion illegal will prevent many horrible abuses that society now condones.
If life begins at conception, we'll have to institute conception certificates. We'll have to establish a Bureau of Conception in which all conceptions will need registering.
After all, pregnancy is expensive. The IRS will have an interest in knowing if the fetus is viable or not, if the fetus was conceived in this or that fiscal year, and if the fetus is actually the offspring of the taxpayer claiming it him or her to obtain the fetal exemption.
We have to realize, also, that there's only one immaculate conception. Therefore all registered conceptions will have to identify a father who would have to be economically and morally responsible for the fetus. DNA tests will be necessary for all fetuses.
(Let's not comptemplate the horrible possibility that there might be unregistered conceptions. That would be a nightmare world in which the helpless fetus would be at the mercy of unfit women -- particularly those so unfit as to have sex outside of marriage! Smokers, drinkers, caffeine addicts, drug users and other sorts of unfit mothers-to-be would have to be closely watched or, in extreme cases, prevented from conceiving if they do not respond to our Tough Love measures.)
Once we have established Certificates of Conception, we'll be able to give the best prenatal health care to those couples who've demonstrated their responsibility by applying for Certificates of Conception. Of course it will be society's job to prevent unsanctioned conceptions through education and strict monitoring of those who've reached their biological maturity. Unregulated fornication -- which could lead to millions of unsanctioned conceptions -- would have to be rigorously enforced. Nothing is more precious than the life of the most helpless of our citizens.
Since new life is so precious, before obtaining a Certificate of Conception, prospective parents will have to obtain a Certification of Intention to Undertake Sex. This would justify society screening for potential genetic defects, early behavioral problems and even parental suitability. We will be able to correct many of God's mistakes before He makes them.
Who would dare complain about preventing such dreadful immorality in this world?
MW
December 5, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Christian Page (to whom Todd links) points out that Bush has spent more time and effort on preventing access to contraception than to overturning Roe vs. Wade. According to Christina, here is what he has been doing:
All of these actions can be conducted under current law, and together make it much more difficult for a woman to get access to contraception.There is also the problem of fundamentalists who work in pharmacies who refuse to sell contraceptives and the morning-after pill to women based on their own conscience and in violation of the ethics of their professions. Such people should be fired and both them adn their employers sued. Think that Romney or Huckabee would allow that to happen?
December 5, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "likelihood", being realistic, is that, having approved plenty of antichoice Supreme Court Justices in the past, with Democratic majorities in the Senate, such a Justice, if selected with a minimum of savvy, would also be approved.
Consider: The Democrats enjoyed an ample majority in the Senate (as large as any likely to come out of 08, assuming, which is quite possible, Democratic Party gains there) when Clarence Thomas was up for approval. Not only his rightwing ideology was at issue (his nomination was ready to sail through the Senate), but an overWHELMINGly credible report of sexual harassment, and, of crucial importance, his apparent perjury about it before the Senate, and he was approved by some 52 odd Senators even then.
So what would it take for them to BLOCK a nomination, as in the exceptional case of Robert Bork? Well, over the years my faith in the tooth fairy has waned, especially with my first root canal coming up next week.
December 5, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
MiltonWiltmellow said:
I know you were being sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway;
Didn't the Jews try to complain about that kind of shit in the 30s?
December 5, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "likelihood", being realistic, is that, having approved plenty of antichoice Supreme Court Justices in the past, with Democratic majorities in the Senate, such a Justice, if selected with a minimum of savvy, would also be approved.
Consider: The Democrats enjoyed an ample majority in the Senate (as large as any likely to come out of 08, assuming, which is quite possible, Democratic Party gains there) when Clarence Thomas was up for approval. Not only his rightwing ideology was at issue (his nomination was ready to sail through the Senate), but an overWHELMINGly credible report of sexual harassment, and, of crucial importance, his apparent perjury about it before the Senate, and he was approved by some 52 odd Senators even then.
So what would it take for them to BLOCK a nomination, as in the exceptional case of Robert Bork? Well, over the years my faith in the tooth fairy has waned, especially with my first root canal coming up next week.
December 5, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cloudy,
The issue is not just "choice", as I'm sure you know.
After Bush nominated Samuel Alito, Knight-Ridder did a study of Alito's rulings/opinions and discovered he had a propensity to come down on the side of power and authority (Corporate and Government) over the individual.
December 5, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
heh heh :-)
December 5, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
All too true.
Overturning Roe v Wade is but a major example of a cornucopia of awful things of varying visibility if the SOCUS continues to move to the right (as with the replacement of Justice Stevens).
Incidentally, my view is that we really need badly a progressive president likely to be MUCH more aggressive than Hillary in pursuing global warming, a new approach to the world, addressing the polarization of wealth and poverty and so much more. If she gets the Democratic nomination, then basically there's no choice, but if the Democrats don't win this presidential election, I am afraid that this country, whose system has quite a bit of resilience built into it, is in for serious irreparable harm, as is also the case for the whole planet.
December 5, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cloudy,
agreed.
December 5, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he was being sarcastic.
"Certification of Intention to Undertake Sex" has "COITUS" as its acronym. That *might* be a giveaway.
December 5, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this is the "exceptional case", given current political realities-- a very unpopular president and a closely divided Court. This isn't 1991. Should Bush have another vacancy to fill on the Court next year and unless he nominates someone at least as moderate as Kennedy it will indeed be the Bork scenario again.
Besides why ist he assumption always made that it will be one of the "liberals" that retires or dies? Why not Scalia or Thomas?
December 6, 2007 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right, and it's particularly sad to note that, just a few weeks ago, the attorney who won Griswold, Catherine Roraback, passed away. In a more rational world, there would be no question that the case would permanently live on.
December 6, 2007 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mitt 'lebensborn' Romney and the rest
of the bible-humpers need to take a chill-pill
and consider the ramifications of their rhetoric
were it to be followed out to its' natural conclusion.
The world we live in is already overpopulated,
if by overpopulation you indicate that the
number of people outstrips the resources
readily available to support them, food,
clean water, medical, energy. Nevermind jobs
or a prayer out of the economic condition
they're in...
Maybe Mitt doesn't feel the bite with his
billions, but for some the choice between
being a welfare/charity recipient and being
able to support yourself is sometimes made
at the expense of delaying or refusing
parenthood. I'm sure that the Mormons, though,
with their penchant for large families, can
more than compensate for the bio-refuseniks
in the global race to the bottom...
December 7, 2007 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Impeach, you just don't get the far-right mind-set. For them, having the baby is the punishment a loose woman deserves for having sex.
Not married? She made her bed she should lay in it -- the fetus is worshipped but the child be damned.
Not rich? Don't have sex at all. Pregnant and poor? Too bad; your fetus is more important than you and your baby is your punishment, so don't ask us hard-working, deservingly wealthy (even though we inherited it tax-free) people for a hand-out.
Raped? You probably asked for it, but that glorious zygote deserves to be born so much that you should not even be able to take a morning-after pill. The resulting baby? You're on your own.
Adoption? Most unwed, unrich, raped woment simply do no give their babies up for adoption. It is a fact. Child abuse? Does that happen to "wanted" children? Sadly, yes, because some people are sick, but in most cases is goes hand-in-hand with deprivation.
To the far-right, wealth is a sign that you DESERVE your wealth; it is one way to show that god has smiled on you.
Mitt Romney and Huckabee are both equally scarey and I hope they slip up on their slippery sanctimony.
Jan
December 7, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole GOP lineup is scary. Romney reminds me of the God-crazy president in "Escape from LA" (do we really want to hear about the Garment?); Huckabee is out of touch with reality; Giuliani is just a Godfather with a badge; and the others are either clueless goofballs like Thompson and Hunter or rabid attack dogs like Tancredo.
December 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet most of the current members, who were recently told to "Shut Up" might secretly be wishing for this very event as to one of the players you name:
Besides why ist he assumption always made that it will be one of the "liberals" that retires or dies? Why not Scalia or Thomas?
Even Harriet Maiers would have been better than Thomas!
Jan
December 7, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it past time that not only Romney but the current darling of authenticity, Mike Huckabee, be asked whether they think contraception ought to be curtailed?
Yes. And not just "contraception" in general, but they should be asked about specific methods of contraception, starting with the pill. Along with:
December 9, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink