I wrote yesterday that the Democratic co-sponsor of the latest anti-choice bill was “not talking”.
He has since responded to a question from Talking Points Memo, so I wanted to update.
Here’s the response:
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, will eliminate the need for numerous separate annual abortion-funding prohibitions (called riders) and ensure that no program or agency is exempt from the long-standing ban on taxpayer funding of abortion. The bill also codifies the conscience clause known as Hyde-Weldon. H.R. 3 maintains the status quo prohibition on taxpayer funding for abortion that has long been embodied in the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment allows for taxpayer funding of abortion in very limited cases, including if the pregnancy is the result of rape. The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.
I don’t believe that the language of H.R. 3 was “not intended to change existing law” because they changed the language in several significant ways.
They could have, for example, simply used the “exception” language in the Stupak or Hyde amendments. They didn’t.
I suppose they could argue that they deliberately inserted language on rape, incest and minor children as a purely political matter and it doesn’t change meaning, but doing that doesn’t say anything good about the Pro-Life Caucus and their deep, sincere concern for issues that may be of concern to “pregnant females”, now does it?
Yutsano
FIFY. The best thing we can do for now is stop framing things on their terms. Let’s call them what they truly are and they can bitch about it later.
Benjamin Cisco (mobile)
Well, he may be talking, but he’s full of it.
kay
@Benjamin Cisco (mobile):
They carefully limited the answer to TPM’s question, which wasn’t the single question I had.
I’m grateful, though. Someone insisted they answer something, and followed up for longer than 24 hours. That’s progress. I guess.
Mark
What the fuck does that mean?
West of the Cascades
Saying the new language was “not meant to change existing law” is a ridiculous statement, both to people with common sense and also to lawyers. When courts evaluate the meaning of a statutory amendment, one thing they look at is any change in wording. If a new provision uses identical words as the statute did before the amendment, courts presume that Congress did not intend to change the meaning. When Congress does change the wording of a statute, courts presume that Congress intended the meaning to change.
Do these people really think everyone else is an idiot?
Kryptik
@Mark:
In other words,, the bill would basically consider any rape that doesn’t leave marks or isn’t in-cestuous with a minor to be ‘not rape’, in regards to whether the woman deserves to be told ‘tough shit’ and forced to carry a baby.
MikeJ
@Mark: Statutory rape, date rape, drugging rape. All of these aren’t “rape” to the he man woman haters club.
Ed Marshall
Yeah, right. Who starts playing around with wording in existing legislature because they think they can write better prose? It means *something*.
John - A Motley Moose
@West of the Cascades:
Yes.
cathyx
I have to say that I don’t get the rape or incest exception to the pro-life stance. Either you are against killing a fetus or you’re not.
I know all of the arguments the anti-abortionists use and not a single one makes sense.
Violet
@Yutsano:
Ding, ding, ding! They are no longer Pro Lifers, or even the Anti-abortion crowd. They are the Forced Birth folks. They force women to give birth. Call them what they are.
John - A Motley Moose
How about a Hyde amendment for taxpayer funding of executions? How about one for foreign aid for dictators that kill their own people? The first one is directly comparable to funding for abortions is you accept their argument. I am against the death penalty. Why do my taxes go to fund it?
Stillwater
@cathyx: Incrementalism.
Ed Marshall
@West of the Cascades:
He thinks people are stupid. That’s all I can come up with. Lipinski has a PH.D. in Poli Sci from Duke. His whole career was coming up as a congressional staffer. If he wrote that thing, he knows that he is bullshitting people.
FlipYrWhig
I still find rather appalling the notion of reducing the in/cest provision such that it would seem no longer to apply to adult women, only to children. But the new legislative language seems to make that clear: you can only use federal funds to pay for abortion _even in cases of in/cest_ if the “pregnant female” is underage.
MikeJ
@cathyx: I’m not LDS myself, but last week I was reading some church documents[1]. I was surprised to find that even they have an exemption for rape & incest. Catholics don’t, so it surprised me that LDS did.
[1] Book 1 of the Handbook was online and I always like to see what religions like to keep secret. The stuff mentioned in the post wasn’t from that, but from some ancillary reading.
kay
@West of the Cascades:
For me, the big change is “pregnant female” (if I read that to include minors) and the exclusionary language regarding minors.
I was hoping the reckless zealots would keep clear of the abuse, neglect and dependency realm, because they last thing we need is more political posturing and hyperbole there.
We already have PLENTY of conservatives at the state level grandstanding on it.
General Stuck
This kind of abomination legislation should be hit with a rock, rolled in elephant shit, doused in kerosene and burned to a fine powdered crisp. Then buried in a 50 foot deep grave, along with the career of any democrat that endorsed or voted for it.
MikeJ
Grrr. I forgot that the abortion exemptions contain a moderation word.
Sko Hayes
Does the man think we can’t read the bill?
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/abortion-hr3/
cathyx
@Stillwater: That’s not a good enough explanation. I know what it means, but if you believe in something, then you can’t say it’s ok sometimes in order to get what you want later on.
Violet
@cathyx:
Yep. If you’re truly against abortion then you logically have to be against abortion no matter how the fetus came to be. Otherwise, you are not against abortion, you are against some abortions. And then the question becomes, “Where is the line?” and also “Why there?”
The answer for most forced birthers who will allow abortion in cases of rape or incest is that it’s all about what the woman was doing when she was having sex. If she was enjoying herself, then she should suffer and be punished for it. If she didn’t enjoy herself, well, then, maybe there can be some exceptions. In other words, it’s all about controlling women and not at all about protecting babies.
In reality, these forced birthers are pretty much like the rapists they are now protecting. They are all about control and when and how a woman has sex. Sounds like rape to me.
ppcli
@cathyx: They realize that eliminating the rape exception would be a political disaster. They couldn’t even get North Dakota (or was it South?) to pass that one. But they hate it and so they are going after it by other means. Adding “forcible” to “rape” is diabolically clever from their point of view – it will later give some conservative court a fulcrum to interpret a narrowing into the law.
Let’s hope this is finally a point where they are not allowed to get away with their sleazy linguistic tricks. Just say: Ok, if it isn’t meant to change the law, put the language back the way it was. Force them to be up front about what they are doing.
Violet
GAH. Went to moderation. It’s the “r word” or the “i word” isn’t it? I’ll try again:
@cathyx:
Yep. If you’re truly against abortion then you logically have to be against abortion no matter how the fetus came to be. Otherwise, you are not against abortion, you are against some abortions. And then the question becomes, “Where is the line?” and also “Why there?”
The answer for most forced birthers who will allow abortion in cases of ra pe or inc est is that it’s all about what the woman was doing when she was having sex. If she was enjoying herself, then she should suffer and be punished for it. If she didn’t enjoy herself, well, then, maybe there can be some exceptions. In other words, it’s all about controlling women and not at all about protecting babies.
In reality, these forced birthers are pretty much like the rapists they are now protecting. They are all about control and when and how a woman has sex. Sounds like ra pe to me.
Kay
@General Stuck:
I defended anti-abortion liberals like Marcy Kaptur here during the ACA battles, because she’s a liberal. She actually IS with us on everything but abortion.
But I was thinking that the anti-abortion (liberal) Democrats haven’t moved the ball at all on other liberal priorities, and they could have, if they’re going to sign on to GOP amendments on abortion.
They could insist that anything that limits funding for abortion increase funding for prenatal care, just as an example.
They’d lose in this House, but I would do less questioning of their motives if they seemed to have some sort of coherent liberal pro-life position.
But they don’t. They just ape the GOP talking points.
MikeJ
If a woman is raped, it might have been by a black man. Therefore, protecting abortion rights for your daughter is important.
Yutsano
@ppcli: Actually some midwestern state DID try to outlaw it even in cases of rape or incesht (I think it was Kansas but don’t quote me on that now. I only say that because my fuzzy recollection includes a veto override.) The Supreme Court said I don’t think so. So it’s not like this avenue hasn’t been attempted before.
cathyx
If you were true to your beliefs, then no exception can be acceptable. And that goes with any life including those on death row. That’s what infuriates me about so many so called Christians. There are always exceptions to their beliefs.
Violet
@MikeJ:
Rich white people can pay for their own abortions. It’s important to control what poor people do though. And if poor white people have babies they don’t want, well, that’s just more for for Ross Douthat to adopt.
MikeJ
@Violet: They might want to force pregnancy in all cases on poor whites, but I think the fear of young bucks makes it an electoral non-starter.
Violet
@MikeJ:
Maybe they can take poor white people away to camps and make sure they get impregnated by the “right sort.” Then the perfectly white babies can be given to the Douchats of the world. Everybody wins!
Michael Bersin
Even the current anti-choice bills before the republican dominated Missouri General Assembly manage to avoid the “pregnant female” convention used in HR 3. But, interestingly enough, they use the term “female” in another completely different context.
rikyrah
weasel ass mofo. don’t let up. keep on his lying behind.
Yutsano
@Violet: Margaret Atwood, we hardly knew ye. I’m afraid that might just be where things are headed, to stave off the impending demographic doom.
Violet
@Yutsano:
I envision some kind of horrific combination of “The Handmaid’s Tale” and the movie “A Boy and His Dog.” Jason Robards’ character in the latter doesn’t seem nearly as far fetched now as it did when I first saw the movie.
Stillwater
@cathyx: but if you believe in something, then you can’t say it’s ok sometimes in order to get what you want later on.
Why not? Because you’re political opponents will call you ‘inconsistent’ and ‘unprincipled’ and criticize you for holding ‘contradictory views’? We’re talking about conservatives here.
Politically, conservatives care only about ends, not at all about means. Here’s a little thought experiment: If conservatives could definitively outlaw abortion by aborting 278 fetuses, how long would it take them to decide, by the grace of God, that the trade was worth it? They don’t think in principled terms, only practical ones. And this legislation gets them closer to their ultimate goal of eliminating the right to choose.
kay
@Michael Bersin:
Looks like the Missouri statehouse put more time and thought into the statute regulating female dogs than the Pro Life Caucus put into this one. Maybe that can be the federal model.
Allan
From the GOP’s Pledge to America (10MB .pdf, mostly pretty color photos and lots of white space to expand about 4 pages of content into 48):
Dude’s lying. It says right there they promise to go further than the Hyde Amendment.
Michael Bersin
@kay: Those Missouri General Assembly bills are directed at repealing a November 2010 statewide initiative vote that placed restrictions on puppy mills. So, in a fashion, the forced birth movement label makes sense.
John - A Motley Moose
@Violet: This really does sum it up very well.
DougW
Well, since the right wing wants to so impose upon pregnant women to carry their babies to term in spite of not being able to physically, financially or emotionally support the children that they are required to carry to term, I can reconcile everyone’s differences.
The folks on the right respect all life to the extent that they insist on every fetus being carried to term.
Therefor, they are 1, ready to allow the government to pay all costs of delivery and maintenance in the event that the mother is uninsured or indigent. 2, Further, since it is the will of the right wing that these children be given their god given opportunities, we will pay for their welfare and education, giving them their opportunities to live the American Dream. 3, Federal policies to make sure that these children will be fed, housed and educated. Further, States that don’t carry their burden of the downtrodden, the indigent and the incapable will be bereft of tax cuts and other benefits meant to support the indigent. Penalties for failure support of our less able members of society should be severe.
Stillwater
In my view, it’s partly about protecting babies, partly about controlling women, partly about making sure that immoral and undeserving ‘others’ get punished, partly about expressing a hypocritical double-standard in practice that only the righteous remain oblivious to. (Along those lines, the number of women who picket abortion clinics on Saturday only to avail themselves, or their daughter, of the service on Tuesday are legion.) I think the power of the anti-abortion crusade is that (almost) every whackaloon conservative (redundant!) can find some reason to get on board with it.
me
Now the NFC is stinking up the place.
Violet
@DougW:
No, no, no. If a woman has sex and gets pregnant she must be punished. That especially applies if she enjoyed the sex. If she can’t support the kid she should have kept her legs closed. She can always give the kid up for adoption (provided it’s white). Otherwise, non-white kids can just deal with the poverty. They’re used to it, so it wouldn’t be a big deal for them. And America is the land of opportunity, so everyone has the chance to succeed if they work hard!
Stillwater
I wonder when Pat Buchanan will advocate allowing abortions for blacks and hispanics but not for whites in order to assure a white majority in 2050.
This will of course make perfect conserva-sense since it’s a policy derived from immutable first principles.
geg6
@Violet:
This. I started calling them forced birthers during the fight over the Stupak amendment and it felt so good to actually say it like it is. They are objectively NOT pro-life; they are only forced birth. It’s not about giving a shit about babies; it’s certainly not about giving any sort of a damn about women. It’s about punishment and fear of women’s sexuality and self-determination. Fuck them and their hiding behind labels designed to mislead. I call ’em what they are: sexually repressed, woman hating forced birthers. That’s their only purpose.
asiangrrlMN
Yes, because we have so few problems in America that we can afford to have our Congresspeople waste time duplicating an existing bill! That’s where I want MY tax dollars going. Yessirree!
@John – A Motley Moose: I made this exact argument over at TNC’s place the other day. I have deep moral issues with going to war (I didn’t think of the death penalty, but I would have added that to my list if I had thought of it), so why can’t I say my tax monies won’t go there? Why are the forced-birthers’ moral values more important than mine? If we are really going to go down that road (as opposed to working as a society, using our collective monies for, oh, I don’t know, societal needs), we better be sure we want to go where it leads.
Keep on this asshat, kay. Lying weasel.
@Violet: This is the part that really fucking burns me. It’s all about how the wanton hussy had it coming, yes she did! Things like this make me VERY stabby stabby. Where’s my rusty pitchfork?
Jeanne ringland
@Michael Bersin: So we’re back to being not-quite-humans.
Frankly, I was already wondering why they needed to use the words “pregnant” OR “female” because who else is going to be getting an abortion?
Omnes Omnibus
@John – A Motley Moose:
@asiangrrlMN:
Because this is about babies, not killing criminals, many of whom are brown.
asiangrrlMN
@Omnes Omnibus: D’oh! That’s right. I keep forgetting that not every life is equally precious.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
No matter what they say, it’s NOT about babies. They are fine with babies starving, or living in rat and gang infested neighborhoods, or blowing them up in wars. It’s about contolling women and their sexuality.
Omnes Omnibus
@asiangrrlMN: it is weird how hard it was to type that even though it was snark.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s your inherent humanity trying to assert itself. Sometimes you can work around that. Then you remember you have to get up in the morning.
Batocchio
Slightly OT – the site displayed a Google ad for “Pro-Life Checks.” Poe’s Law, I guess.
asiangrrlMN
@geg6: That’s why I called them pro-birthers before switching to forced-birthers. They only care about the embryo in some vague way before it’s actually born.
@Omnes Omnibus: I know. There are some things that are so distasteful to type, even when you don’t mean it.
Ruckus
@Jeanne ringland:
These are conservatives, no logic is allowed.
I still like forced-birth sociopath. Not very civil but maybe it’s time to be less civil. Being civil just seems to get people politically run over anymore.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: I’ve been a lawyer for 14 years; I should be able get around little things like inherent humanity by now.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
You haven’t developed lawyer face in 14 years? You know the one where you can lie with a smile and act more injured than your client.
Good for you.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: Of course I can do it. I just feel badly about it. You can see how that would be a problem.
Michael Bersin
@Jeanne ringland: As someone has already pointed out, Margaret Atwood’s dystopia is looking more and more prescient.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
So you can do it but you’re not convincing?
You can do it but you hate yourself in the morning?
It’s a job requirement and you justify it for the money?
Sorry couldn’t help myself. Sometimes feeling bad is the best we can do. And many don’t have that capacity.
suzanne
@Violet:
Concur.
Assholes.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: My clients are due the best representation I can provide. I do my best to present the facts in their case in the light most favorable to their interest. How’s that for an answer?
Violet
@Omnes Omnibus:
I give that a 10 on the Lawyerly Weasel scale. Heh.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
I have to agree with Violet. And yes it was snark and yes I am laughing.
I have been in a somewhat high profile job and had to find that face myself sometimes. It was one of the reasons that I changed careers fairly late in my working life.
Stillwater
@geg6: No matter what they say, it’s NOT about babies. They are fine with babies starving, or living in rat and gang infested neighborhoods, or blowing them up in wars. It’s about contolling women and their sexuality.
Kind of late to get back to this. Look, geg6, I usually agree with you, but I think this is just wrong. It’s clear (to a thinking person) that the net effect of increased abortion restrictions entails that women lose freedoms and the ability to self-determine on a number of important issues. A liberal may conclude from this obvious entailment that the purpose of abortion restricting legislation is merely to oppress and control women. But a conservative need not be aware of that entailment when forming their views (we’re talking about conservatives here). Nor need they be bound to thinking that women’s freedoms are the only value in play even if they do understand the entailment (there is the God stuff, and ‘traditional’ roles are a positive value many Christians endorse).
An example from you’re comment: there is no contradiction in a person believing in a right to life (or more precisely, that human life begins at conception) while also denying that government or anyone else ought to fund minimal subsistence for that (born) child. Sure, a more nuanced and complete understanding of how these two beliefs interact will make holding that distinction a little more tenuous. And it is tenuous, and maybe even inconsistent, to us (as liberals, given our values). But that doesn’t mean that a person who advocates for a right to life but fails to support government programs for (say) single mothers, is liar who secretly desires to oppress women.
I will admit that the most vocal anti-abortion voices I hear are from Christian men (otherwise known as WEC cudlipos), and so my own feeling is that they clearly are intending for abortion restrictions to oppress women. But other people may not be intending that at all. In fact aren’t. (They just don’t see it the way, for example, I do.)
Or look, here’s another way of saying it: I think you’re giving conservatives in general too much credit when you say that – to a person – they’re lying when they say it’s about the babies, and they’re lying when they don’t admit it’s about oppressing women.
Ruckus
@Violet:
A ten?
I’ll bet a really knowledgeable lawyer could tell what law school was attended by the wording of that answer. Kind of like an unreadable DR signature being the first thing you learn in med school.
Ruckus
@Stillwater:
That the subtle nuances are lost on those who advocate is not important. What they are advocating for is important. And wrong. Both in its humanity and in its logic.
Stillwater
@Ruckus: It’s wrong according to our value scheme. To them it makes perfect sense. And that’s my point: some of the AntiAbortion Avengers are clearly using the rhetoric of ‘save the babies’ for nefarious ends. But others aren’t. They have their values, they have their ‘logic’, both of which seem sorta un-mature from our point of view. And dangerous. And often immoral and crazy. From our point of view. But that’s how they do.
ETA: Also, I disagree that the nuances being lost on them is unimportant. The only way for people to change for the better is for them to understand the nuances.
asiangrrlMN
@Stillwater: I am in agreement with geg6. I don’t think the advocates of forced-birth are lying about it–they just don’t fully realize their own motives. They want to live in this fluffy world where every perfect white baby is born (and then given to some deserving wealthy couple, as suggested by Douthat), but they don’t give a shit about said baby once it’s born (especially if it’s not a perfect white baby). Even so-called reasonable proponents of forced-birth will say something about a woman having to deal with the consequences of her behavior. In other words, slut-shaming.
@Ruckus: This, too. Fuck the forced-birthers.
@Stillwater: The problem is, many refuse to accept nuance, so then we get lost in the discussion about nuance. As I said to someone at TNC’s place: abortions are legal. They are healthcare. Morality doesn’t play a part in that.
I am not interested in changing anyone’s mind–just making sure that abortions stay legal.
Violet
@Stillwater: @asiangrrlMN:
I agree with asiangrrlMN. If they cared about the babies, they’d want to make sure they were all in safe homes and well taken care of after birth. That they don’t proves they are not being honest.
It doesn’t have to be the government stepping in, either. If they really cared about the babies, they’d have “adoption drives” at their churches, encouraging all their members to adopt babies and even older children, heck, especially older and special needs kids. They’d emphasize the virtue of making sure no child goes hungry. They’d make adopting kids a badge of honor. Etc. Etc.
But they do not do this. There’s no concerted effort among evangelical churches to get their members to adopt as many kids as they can fit in their multiple minivans. Adoption isn’t a competitive sport, badge of honor, proof of Being A Good Christian.
The push for “saving babies” stops when the baby leaves the mother’s vagina (or uterus if it’s a c-section). Once the baby is alive and breathing, well, it’s up to the mother to figure out how to deal with it.
It’s not that they “don’t admit” it’s about oppressing women. They may not recognize it’s about oppressing women. That still doesn’t change the fact that it’s about oppressing women. Just because someone is blind doesn’t mean the giant elephant in the room isn’t there.
Violet
@Ruckus:
This one goes to eleven.
Stillwater
@asiangrrlMN: I am not interested in changing anyone’s mind—just making sure that abortions stay legal.
If the legality of abortion is in jeopardy, how do you propose to maintain it without changing people’s minds?
Stillwater
@Violet: They may not recognize it’s about oppressing women. That still doesn’t change the fact that it’s about oppressing women.
This was exactly my point.
Violet
@Stillwater:
How can what I said be your point when you said this in your initial post:
So I say it’s about oppressing women, and you say that’s your point. Geg6 says it’s about controlling women and their sexuality (which I agree with, just for the record), and you say “this is just wrong.”
I took that to mean we were on different sides of the issue. We’re not? I’m confused. Is it some subtle different between “oppressing women” and “controlling women and their sexuality”? I think the second is really a subset of the first, if we’re being particular about it. Oppressing women is the larger category. Controlling women and specifically their sexuality falls within that category. How are they different?
Stillwater
@Violet: If they cared about the babies, they’d want to make sure they were all in safe homes and well taken care of after birth. That they don’t proves they are not being honest.
I disagree. Conservatives believe in a right to life for babies, and they believe in rugged individualism and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (this sounds snarky but isn’t). These aren’t contradictory. For them you have a right to be born, but you’re not necessarily entitled to special government provided comforts. They are being honest. Incredibly confused and irrational, but honest.
Jeanne ringland
@Ruckus: Yeah. Depressing.
And I’m starting to be a bit more uncivil about things, but I know I’ll be accused of being strident.
Jeanne ringland
@Michael Bersin: Nil bastardis carborundum.
(spelling?)
trixie larue
Has this clown, or any of these clowns, ever been raped? Who the heck are they to decide which kind of rape qualifies as deserving abortion.
“controlling women and their sexuality” makes it seem as if it’s not the male physicality that determines whether to rape or not. This is absolute bullshit.
We have to stop this rabid, convoluted logic. We are not Iran, yet. We haven’t begun to stone women yet, for this crime, as far as I know.
Enough of this bull! Sanity, marches, preserve our rights!
Stillwater
@Violet: Ah. I was disagreeing with geg6 about the claim that ‘whatever they say, it’s not about the babies’. I understood her to mean that conservatives are deliberately lying about what the point of the legislation is. So, yeah, we still disagree. What you wrote struck me as ambiguous between two readings, and I chose the wrong one.
Look, we both agree that the result of abortion restricting legislation is oppression of women. We disagree that that is the sole point of the legislation, or the sole reason for a conservative to support that legislation.
Violet
@Stillwater:
If you read the rest of what I wrote, I did NOT say anything about the government providing the safe home for babies. I get that they don’t think the government should be stepping in.
Fine. So it’s all supposed to be left to charities and churches and so forth. Where the fuck are they, then? Why is adopting all those babies not number one on their list of How To Tell A Good Christian Just By Looking? Why don’t they push their members to adopt children? Why don’t they make adoption a status symbol? Why aren’t the virtues of adoption not only preached from the pulpit but encouraged via action and deed?
How the hell is a baby supposed to pull itself up by it’s bootstraps? It can’t. It needs help from someone. If they think the government is not the entity to help, then where are they? Where the fuck are they? Answer: Not Adopting All The Babies.
Actions speak louder than words. It’s not about the babies. It’s about controlling women and their sexuality.
I get that you think there is some subtle nuance in this issue. And sure, there are always gray areas. But let’s cut the crap. If they cared about babies, they’d advocate adoption. Every freaking sermon would talk it up. They don’t. Therefore it’s not about the babies. It’s about controlling women and their sexuality.
Stillwater
@Violet: Adding to the last comment: the point I was making is that even tho the logical outcome of abortion restricting language is the oppression of women, a conservative need not be aware of that, nor need they be committed to choosing women’s freedom above some other values they in fact hold (eg., God stuff trumps human stuff).
So the claim that they aren’t concerned about the babies seems to me just plain false on it’s face. From the point of view of our values, it appears that the conservative is being disingenuous. But from their values they are being completely honest.
asiangrrlMN
@Stillwater: People’s minds are not going to be changed. Whatever convoluted reason they have in believing it’s a good thing to force women to have babies will never change. What I DO think can be changed are the minds of people who don’t personally support abortion, but they are squeamish in law changes that make abortion illegal. These are the people with whom I can converse. The twenty-seven percent dead-enders? Fuck them.
As to your last point: They don’t care about babies. Period. That is inarguable because they don’t support anything that is favorable to babies or families (and I’m not talking about government). So, I personally don’t feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to saying they think they care about babies. They have to prove that’s the case, and nothing they’ve done or said has convinced me that they do.
ETA: I think we have the whip hand in this case that most Americans do not want abortion to be illegal. It’s time we started acting a lot less apologetic about the whole issue.
Omnes Omnibus
@Stillwater: One of the problems I have with it being about babies is, as people have noted above, many of them show no interest in the health or welfare of the post-born. This lack of concern leads me to think that they aren’t really concerned about the babies in and of themselves, but rather as a means to an end.
Violet
@Stillwater:
I’m still confused.
I believe that there are conservatives who do not think they are lying about the point of the legislation. However, in the reality based world, they are lying. Even if they are lying to themselves about it, they are lying.
I am not sure we disagree. I recognize there are plenty of conservatives who believe they are “saving babies.” The problem is, they don’t think any further than that. They seem to believe there is some imaginary world where the “saved baby” now lives in a perfect home with a white picket fence and two loving, well-off parents who provide it with anything it could ever want. They have very little idea that things can turn out very differently for the baby.
And, in that perfect world, the baby is saved (picket fence, two parent family) and the woman is probably a changed woman, thrilled she kept her baby, married to her high school sweetheart, and converted to Christianity to boot. So many lives saved!
That’s the fantasy, but it’s not the reality. So I get that they think this is the direction they’re heading when they support the legislation. What I cannot support is their head-in-the-sand approach to it and their hypocrisy. You want to “save all the babies”? Fine. Go see what it’s like for them. There are plenty of children who need homes. Adopt a whole bunch of them. Walk the talk. But they don’t.
So no matter what they say, the upshot of it is that the real reason for supporting the legislation is to control women. That’s the result and the results speak for themselves. Because the other supposed intended result, the one where all those babies magically find homes, sure ain’t happening.
Violet
@Stillwater:
I understand that. A conservative forced-birther could be blissfully ignorant of the fact that their stance oppresses women. There is no logic fail there; only ignorance.
How does this statement follow from the first? They can CLAIM their support is about the babies, but they show zero support for the babies once they are born (the “post-born”, to use Omnes Omnibus’s lovely phrase). How is it false that they do not support the babies? If you support babies you have to actually, you know, SUPPORT them somehow.
I do not see how you get from the first statement (they are ignorant that they are oppressing women) to the second statement (they really do care about the babies). Those are two separate issues. They can be ignorant that they are oppressing women but still support the babies. The fact is, they are both ignorant AND they do not support the post-born. They are the worst in both instances.
Stillwater
@Omnes Omnibus: If they cared about the babies, they’d want to make sure they were all in safe homes and well taken care of after birth. That they don’t proves they are not being honest.
I guess I don’t see on the face of it (of course I do when looking a little deeper) that one follows from the other. I think it’s perfectly consistent for a conservative to believe in a right to life as well as rejecting any other forms of interference in the ways that baby is raised. I mean, on this very blog I’ve commented that conservatism can often be most clearly understood as a politics of meanness. But that doesn’t mean they’re disingenuous when they espouse these values.
Stillwater
@asiangrrlMN: They don’t care about babies. Period. That is inarguable because they don’t support anything that is favorable to babies or families (and I’m not talking about government). So, I personally don’t feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to saying they think they care about babies.
No, the don’t care about how babies are raised in actual practice, according to the normal standards of what constitutes care. I agree with that. As for giving them the benefit of the doubt about their claims that the care about babies, by rejecting it you’re committed to all conservatives being liars about their motivations for abortion restrictions. That seems unlikely to me, tho people obviously differ on this. It seems to me the better explanation is that they simply have different values than us, and a different way of thinking about these issue than we do. Most (or at least many) of them are being honest, even though their belief isn’t grounded in anything like a consideration of evidence, or logical consequences, or how these beliefs hang together.
Ruckus
@Stillwater:
We are whistling past each other here.
You state that you don’t agree with the Forced Birth Sociopaths yet you keep arguing using their faulty logic and trying to create something out of thin air.
You are saying it does not matter that they have illogical ideas and want us to respect them.
And we are calling bullshit.
Their faulty logic and requirements for everyone else’s lives takes away their rights to demand we respect their views. And we don’t. FBS don’t have any respect for others or their rights, only their own point of view. And you want us to respect them for that?
ETA I’m done with this discussion. Going further is pointless.
Stillwater
@Violet: I believe that there are conservatives who do not think they are lying about the point of the legislation. However, in the reality based world, they are lying. Even if they are lying to themselves about it, they are lying.
I’m not sure I’m quite comfortable agreeing that even tho they are unaware they are being deceitful, they are deceitful nonetheless. In fact, I don’t think this is the case with the sorta run-of-the-mill conservative. Douthat, Conor, ED Kain, et al. wear their propaganda and bullshit on their sleeves, since being an evidence-free advocate for conservatism is a badge of honor in their community. Those guys are shilling for something insidious. But the average conservative really believes the bullshit. He believes in a right to life, full stop (with the help of other bullshit like Mens Rights, etc.). (Or maybe he tempers it with a concession to in-cest, or violent rape, or whatever.) Otherwise, he’d be smart enough, or clear enough, to see that the arguments in favor of abortion restriction are bullshit. Which brings us full circle to the suggestion that they’re all liars.
Stillwater
@Ruckus: You state that you don’t agree with the Forced Birth Sociopaths yet you keep arguing using their faulty logic and trying to create something out of thin air.
I’m not defending their policy choices, I’m saying that their value scheme is allows them to support abortion restrictions for more reasons than that they simply want to oppress women.
You are saying it does not matter that they have illogical ideas and want us to respect them.
And we are calling bullshit.
Not respect the beliefs, just recognize that they may hold those beliefs. Look, I’m not defending conservative policies. Take all this any way you like (of course, I think I’ve been pretty clear). But one thing I certainly wasn’t doing was suggesting that even if conservatives truly believe that abortion legislation is all about the babies and not a conscious attempt to oppress women, we (as liberals) should somehow give their view any more respect.
Violet
@Stillwater:
I’m not trying to argue that every conservative believes exactly the same thing. They don’t. People are different. However, there are those who are aware they are lying and those who are not. Even those who are not aware they are lying are still lying. ED Kain, for instance, is pro-choice. He may not call himself that (in fact he calls himself pro-life) but when pressed on it stated that he is pro-life for himself but not for others. Hello, that’s called pro-choice. CHOICE, everyone gets their own. Sheesh. WHY is this so difficult for so-called conservatives to understand?
So what you are saying is, the conservative only cares about the fetus/baby until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. After that, if it starves on the side of the road or gets eaten by a dog or beaten by a parent and tossed in the ocean, that’s just fine. Because it had the shot at life. And that’s all they care about. Why didn’t that stupid baby pull itself up by its bootstraps? After all, those conservatives fought so hard to get it out of that woman’s vagina. This is America, dammit. Try harder stupid baby.
This attitude, if it is what they believe, is the height of hypocrisy. A baby can’t pull itself up by its bootstraps and I don’t see them running out to help all those poor kids who need a good home. So until they do that, they’re hypocritical liars who refuse to look rationally at what they support. They are making decisions based on emotion not on fact. That’s fine if they’re picking a paint color for their living room, but when it comes to the real world, that’s not good enough. Sorry, no excuses for that.
If someone allows an exception at all for any reason then they are pro-choice. Otherwise their logic doesn’t add up. If you can see reasons when abortion would be acceptable, then the only question is WHERE is that line, not IS THERE A LINE. Again, logic fail.
They can’t face this. It comes back to the same old arguments: all babies will have loving, two-parent homes, and women shouldn’t have sex when and where they want, certainly not if they’re going to enjoy themselves.
Stillwater
@Violet: I do not see how you get from the first statement (they are ignorant that they are oppressing women) to the second statement (they really do care about the babies). Those are two separate issues.
Yes they are. But one way that they can be linked (the topic at hand) is by saying that they do know that abortion legislation oppresses women and that they lie about that intention when the say it’s all about the babies.
I don’t think they really care about the babies according to my value scheme. I do think, however, that most conservatives are sincere when they say they care about the babies. (Note that I said ‘most’. Clearly there are disingenuous pundits, politicians, priests, people in power – usually male – who know exactly what the legislation does and lie about it the reasons for it.)
Stillwater
@Violet: So what you are saying is, the conservative only cares about the fetus/baby until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. After that, if it starves on the side of the road or gets eaten by a dog or beaten by a parent and tossed in the ocean, that’s just fine.
I think the other account you gave earlier is probably better: the one with the white picket fence. But either way, on thing is clear (at least to me): conservatives don’t really think about this stuff one way or the other. That’s one reason I don’t think they’re lying (except the people I mentioned above) about their intentions about abortion restrictions.
Villago Delenda Est
The very fact that contraception is as big a bugaboo to these people as abortion is means that the babies are not the issue.
The sex is. Controlling women is. The entire abortion issue is once again a means to an end. Controlling women. If they REALLY wanted to make abortions “rare” they’d be doing everything that they can, to include rubbers, the pill, and what have you, to preventing conception. But that isn’t their tack…the tell is “abstinence” as a solution.
It’s the fucking that drives them nuts.
Ruckus
@Villago Delenda Est:
It’s “other” people fucking and possibly enjoying it that drives them nuts.
Fixed.
Stillwater
@Villago Delenda Est: I saw what you did there. You came to a logical conclusion about conservative’s intentions by attributing rationality to them. That’s a slippery enterprise, given that they reject reason as a guiding light in forming policy or personal beliefs.
Uncle Glenny
Don’t forget that this topic is also a great way to kick that evil soshulzm health care in the butt. The right to an abortion will still exist; it’s the financial hurdles that will be different. So from the point of view of a privatize-everything, pay-your-own-way conservative, this is perfectly consistent with not providing services after birth (or, for the mother, at any other time).
Should said conservative actually really believe in the sanctity of a fetus or gamete, s/he gets a moral two-fer.
My unedumacated opinion is that had we established even a base level of health care as a right (a duty for society to provide), it could be fought on equal protection grounds. With the current court and the vast schism in the country over providing health care (esp. single payer) and other minimal social services, no chance in hell.
Villago Delenda Est
@Stillwater:
Which means that, logically, there’s no way to deal with them within the context of the American Experiment,which is predicated on reason being used to solve disputes.
Nick
@cathyx:
That would be the principled way of looking at it, but I don’t think they’re all necessarily against “killing a fetus”
Speaking as someone who needed time to come around to the pro-choice point of view, I can see the reason. I knew a girl in high school who had two abortions in a year, acting like they meant nothing to her, said it was “better than wearing a condom” cause she hated it. I was repulsed by it. I thought to myself that abortion was never meant to be a form of birth control.
As I grew older, I began to realize that just because that girl treated abortion like it was nothing to her doesn’t mean every woman does and it was still her right even if I was repulsed by it, and I respect that, but I can understand how people who don’t go through the period of maturity and self-discovery I did can see a difference between women like her and women who get raped. If you had asked me at age 17, I’d be agreeing with it.
Stillwater
@Villago Delenda Est: there’s no way to deal with them within the context of the American Experiment,which is predicated on reason being used to solve disputes.
No, there really isn’t. I mean, huge institutional changes would have to occur for them to meet the basic minimal standards for rationally justified participation in a representative democracy. But they still get a vote. Waiting them out, via Salam-Douthat stratification, or for old goats to finally die off, seems like a poor strategy, since conservatism appears to self-regenerate. Fighting the crazy 27%ers is hopeless. That leaves outreach to those left in the middle – to try to persuade them that a rational approach to governance leads to better outcomes than a reactionary one. Democrats are historically terrible at this.
satby
Lipinski is an uber Catholic RINO (aka Blue Dog); the kind that pines for the glory days of the 50s, which is where most of the forced birthers wish we all still lived. Where wimmen were chaste, blacks invisible, and white guys ran basically everything.
He had 7 opponents in the last election, 2 of which were put up to split the votes enough so that he’d win. Machine loyalty keeps him in office, nothing else. He isn’t really beloved in his district, but they’re loyal machine voters.
By the way, the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion even in the case of rape or incest and opposes the death penalty. So though I disagree with the Church, it is at least intellectually consistent, unlike the Evangelicals.