[Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Aug 29 11:34:03 PDT 2012
Donovan
I think that you are fairly close to the mark. It is my guess that very few women want an abortion. It is more likely that the feel they have no other choice. Palouse Care Network councils people( women and men) on other options.
-----Original message-----
From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:46:00 -0700
To: Scott Dredge scooterd408 at hotmail.com, "suehovey at moscow.com" suehovey at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> Scott,
>
> I am not for making abortion illegal. The trouble with your arguments and most people so stuck on one side of an argument is that you cannot see the other person's point of view just your own. In order to convince the other side where they may have incorrect thinking, you have to understand them, understand and address their fears, concerns, and solve their issues. Otherwise, a person comes across as a narrow minded selfish ass.
>
> Pro-lifers get so caught up in making abortion illegal they forget that making it illegal doesn't stop the abortions. And pro-choicers get so caught in keeping it legal that they forget the reason women have abortions is because they don't have many choices in life if they do have baby.
>
> The goal should be reducing the number of abortions to as close to zero as possible without force of law but by opportunities for women that are with an unwanted pregnancies, reduction of unwanted pregnancies through communication and education, and ending discrimination against mothers in the workforce. Women need opportunities to choose life.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; suehovey at moscow.com
> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> Donovan,
>
> The trouble with your argument and the argument of pro-lifers in general is that that you/they can't think 'outside the box' - and specifically outside of a woman's box. :(
>
> -Scott
>
>
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:55:18 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> To: suehovey at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> Sue,
>
> Flo Kennedy was no doubt a wise woman.
>
> I don't think it is the answers to the question that is the problem with Scott Dredge's argument as the false premises used in the question that make it a false dilemma. I would defer to Prof. Campbell on a better explanation for false dilemma.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> Yes, Donovan. It was Flo Kennedy who stated, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
>
> If the absence of all options in all situations makes an item a false dilemma, then help me understand how any significant multifaceted dilemma would not be false. Just an example.
>
> Sue H
>
> From: Donovan Arnold
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM
> To: Scott Dredge ; debismith at moscow.com ; ngier006 at gmail.com ; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Cc: viz
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> Scott,
>
> It is still a false dilemma unless it includes all options in all situations
>
> To me, abortion is really about a person being able to do with their body what they want free from outside interference, not just the government, but husbands, boyfriends, parents, employers, their financial situation, etc. I think they have that right to do whatever they want so far as it doesn't more greatly impact another person's freedom and rights. However, at some point, that fetus is a baby, a human, and has rights too. To ignore that fact is ignorant.
>
> So it is a complex issue. I simply do not agree with the stance that the moment a sperm hits an egg it is a person. This is a belief, not a fact, and I don't think it has any basis in law or science, nor should be an opinion forced on all people to accept. But at some point a fertilized egg may develop in a baby, and at that point it has rights too and those rights need and deserve attention.
>
> I am also very concerned about women being forced to have abortions. This isn't often talked about but I think many women have abortions because of pressures and circumstances they are not given the ability to legally deal with.
>
> The governments role and focus should be to reduce abortions through the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and the expansion of women rights so they have opportunities to have and raise a baby without getting a social demotion while doing so.
>
> If fat, old, balding, conservative white rich men could get pregnant abortion would be free, legal, and a tax credit.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:01 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> OK - I'll keep expanding the line of questioning if you think I'm being too restrictive on your response choices.
>
> 'Do you believe that the government has the right to force a woman to carry her pregnancy to term against her will?'
>
> 1) Yes
> 2) No
> 3) Maybe - in cases of [insert scenario(s) of when government should intervene, method(s) of intervention, punishment to the woman for terminating her unwanted pregnancy, punishment to the doctor for terminating the woman's pregnancy at her behest]
>
> 'Do you believe that the government has the right to force you to carry a pregnancy to term against your will?'
>
> 1) Yes
> 2) No
> 3) Maybe- in cases of [insert scenario(s) of when government should intervene, method(s) of intervention, punishment to you for terminating your unwanted pregnancy, punishment to your doctor for terminating your pregnancy at your behest]
> 3) Not Applicable
>
> -Scott
>
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:15:50 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I think your question is a false dilemma.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:19 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> Donovan,
>
> I think the answer is a simple one if the question is properly asked: 'Do you believe that the government has the right to force you to carry a pregnancy to term against your will?'
>
> 1) Yes
> 2) No
> 3) Not Applicable
>
> -Scott
>
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:26:11 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I agree with what you say here with the exception of abortion. This is an instance where I do see someone that honestly believes babies are being killed wanting a legal end to it. I don't disagree that killing babies is wrong, or horrific, I just disagree that a fertilized egg is a baby. So to me, ending the life an egg and sperm is not murder, only the slaughter of a being with a formed, functioning human brain can be murder in my opinion.
>
> If infanticide was legal in this country, I would wish the law to be changed and strictly enforced to keep innocent babies and infants alive. And since many people do see abortion as infanticide, I agree with them to that end even if it imposed a restriction on the freedoms of others because murder is the greatest restriction of liberty there is.
>
> On other issues, of freedom, such as religion, marriage, how to live your life, you are absolutely right about their demands to incorporate their religion on all people with the force of law, they are wrong, and it is anti-American, and anti-Christian. America is about being free. Christianity is about being free to choose and accept Christ, not about forcing Judeo-Christian laws on people. This often just drives people away from liking the United States and Christianity.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: debismith at moscow.com; ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> The religious right have controlling personalities. They not only want to preach about how people 'should live their personal lives according to God's wisdom', but they also want to force you to live that way by physically restricting your access to birth control, to emergency contraception, to abortion. I haven't checked Doug Wilson's blog lately, but I'm guessing he's thrilled that such 'men' like Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are fighting tooth and nail to enshrine God's law into the law of the land.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> From: debismith at moscow.com
> To: ngier006 at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:29:11 -0500
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
>
>
> Thanks, Nick. Cogent, as usual....too bad the religious right can put their hands over their eyes and ignore it....
> Debi R-S
> ----- Original Message -----
> >From: Nicholas Gier
> >To: lfalen
> >Cc: vision2020
> >Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:30 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> >
> >How the Body Reacts to Sexual Assault
> >Dana Goldstein on August 20, 2012 The Nation
> >Embattled US Senate candidate Todd Akin claimed yesterday that “legitimate rape” somehow turns off the female body’s reproductive capabilities. As Idemonstrate below, that is absurd. But it is important to note thatAkin’s ideology is part of a broader set of misconceptions about how the body reacts to sexual assault.
> >There’s nothing new about the idea that vaginal lubrication, orgasm and pregnancy can occur only after a wanted sexual encounter. None of this is true. A 2004 paper from the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicineaddresses some of these misconceptions. The authors, Roy Levin and Willy van Berlo, considered reports from doctors, nurses and therapists who work with rape survivors. Many of the clinicians had experienced distraught victims’ asking why they felt lubrication or even orgasm during rape.
> >One British nurse-therapist reported the following:
> >“Approximately 1 in 20 women who come to the clinic for treatment because of sexual abuse report that they have had an orgasm from previous unsolicited sexual arousal. It is not detailed in the [professional] literature because the victims usually do not want to tell/talk about it because they feel guilty, as people will think that if it happened they must have enjoyed it. The victims often say, ‘My body let me down.’ Some, however, cannot summon the courage to say even that.”
> >Heartbreaking. Levin and van Berlo found that victims report evidence of physical arousal in as many as 21 percent of rape cases, even when they also report violence and high levels of fear and mental distress. Why? The researchers note that many rapes are comitted by acquaintances or romantic partners of the victims; initial familiarity or even attraction might be supplanted by terror as an encounter becomes coercive. This is relevant, I think, to the charges against Julian Assange, who is accused of sexual assault for refusing to wear a condom with female partners who had earlier consented to sex. If that occured, it is still rape: physical force was used to violate the initial, consensual terms of the encounter.
> >Then there is the simple fact, obvious to most women, that the vagina can become lubricated during sex as a defense mechanism against tearing and pain, regardless of one’s level of enthusiasm or emotional buy-in.
> >And it isn’t just women who can experience these confusing sensations. In men, Levin and van Berlo actually found some links between “anxiety-inducing threats” and increased blood flood flow to the penis.
> >All of this is really hard to write and talk about it, because it exists in the murky area between what we desire and what we fear. Yes, force can provoke arousal, but that doesn’t condone the non-consensualuse of force. The authors conclude:
> >“A perpertrator’s defence against the alleged assault built solely on the evidence that genital arousal or orgasm in the victim proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded.”
> >One of the many problems with Romney/Ryan-like rape exceptions to broad abortion bans is that they encourage anti-choicers to draw a thousand false distinctions between worthy and less worthy rape victims, which is what Akin was really attempting to do. What he cares about is saving as many fetuses as possible, regardless of what calamity befell the women forced to bear them. For example, if you were raped by an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend, is your fetus as unwanted as that of a woman raped by a stranger? If you were raped by a man with whom you were drinking, do you deserve that free pass abortion? Non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex. It exerts unwanted control over a woman’s body—as does forced pregnancy.
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Nick
> >>Most social issues are not hot button items for me. I am more interested in economic issues. In general though, I favor more freedom for the individual and less interference by the government. I am nether strongly pro-choice or pro-life, but tend to be closer to the pro-life position. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. In extremely rare surrmonstances such as the life of the mother, her life should dominate. I think that some of the positions of some democrats such as partial term abortions and allowing a baby that survived aan attempted abortion is much more extreme. Fortunately that is a minority opinion even for democrats.
> >>
> >>I am not aware of the legislation you mentioned, but I doubt that there is any such thing as justifiable rape.
> >>Roger
> >>-----Original message-----
> >>From: Nicholas Gier ngier006 at gmail.com
> >>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:26:45 -0700
> >>To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> >>
> >>> Hi Roger,
> >>>
> >>> Where do you stand on the extreme, no exceptions GOP plank on abortion? As
> >>> a local GOP leader you should tell us what you believe.
> >>>
> >>> And do you support Ryan after he teamed up with Akin in proposing a bill
> >>> with "justifiable rape" in it, which is what Akin said he meant when he
> >>> said "legitimate rape." Fortunately the language was rejected. Ryan and
> >>> Akin are two peas in a pod with regard to social issues.
> >>>
> >>> Inquiring mind wish to know.
> >>>
> >>> Nick
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > The Republicans want him to drop out. His opponent wants him to stay in.
> >>> > Apparently both sides think he will be easy to beat. The rumor has it that
> >>> > Mccaskill's backers funneled a lot of money into his campaign in the
> >>> > primary.
> >>> > Roger
> >>> > -----Original message-----
> >>> > From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> >>> > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:11:15 -0700
> >>> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> > Subject: [Vision2020] The GOP War On Women Accelerates
> >>> >
> >>> > > V
> >>> > > [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
> >>> > >
> >>> > > <
> >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=wwwnytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=a36510e4/68ad5fe5&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad=RubySparks_120x60_June25_NoText&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/rubysparks
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ------------------------------
> >>> > > August 21, 2012
> >>> > > Akin Controversy Stirs Up Abortion Issue in Campaign By JENNIFER
> >>> > > STEINHAUER<
> >>> > http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/jennifer_steinhauer/index.html
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > WASHINGTON — As an orator, Representative Todd
> >>> > > Akin<ttp://
> >>> > topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/todd_akin/index.html?inline=nyt-per
> >>> > >of
> >>> > > Missouri may stand out for his clumsiness. But as a legislator, Mr.
> >>> > > Akin
> >>> > > has a record on abortion that is largely indistinguishable from those of
> >>> > > most of his Republican House colleagues, who have viewed restricting
> >>> > > abortion rights as one of their top priorities.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > That agenda — largely eclipsed for two years by a protracted fiscal
> >>> > crisis
> >>> > > and the fight over how to manage the federal deficit — has wedged its
> >>> > way,
> >>> > > for now at least, to the center of the 2012 campaign. It is focusing
> >>> > > attention on an issue that helped earn Mitt
> >>> > > Romney<
> >>> > http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/mitt-romney?inline=nyt-per
> >>> > >,
> >>> > > the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a reputation as a
> >>> > > flip-flopper, threatening the Republican quest for control of the Senate,
> >>> > > and leaving Representative Paul D.
> >>> > > Ryan<
> >>> > http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/candidates/paul-ryan?inline=nyt-per>of
> >>> > > Wisconsin, Mr. Romney’s vice-presidential pick, in the uncomfortable
> >>> > > position of distinguishing himself from Mr. Akin, with whom he has often
> >>> > > concurred.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It is an agenda that has enjoyed the support of House leaders, including
> >>> > > Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor, the majority
> >>> > > leader, who has called anti-abortion measures “obviously very important
> >>> > in
> >>> > > terms of the priorities we set out initially in our pledge to America.”
> >>> > It
> >>> > > became inextricably linked to the near-shutdown of the federal government
> >>> > > last year when an agreement to keep the government open was reached only
> >>> > > after it was linked to a measure restricting abortion in the District of
> >>> > > Columbia.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Even as Congressional Republicans, including Mr. Boehner, denounced Mr.
> >>> > > Akin’s remark that victims of “legitimate rape” were able to somehow
> >>> > > prevent pregnancy, an agenda to roll back abortion is one that House
> >>> > > Republicans have largely moved in step with.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > In an anti-abortion measure once sponsored by Mr. Akin, Mr. Ryan and
> >>> > scores
> >>> > > of other Republican lawmakers, an exemption was made for victims of
> >>> > > “forcible” rape, though that word was later removed.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > *On Tuesday, Republicans approved platform language for next week’s
> >>> > > nominating convention that calls for a constitutional amendment outlawing
> >>> > > abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest. That
> >>> > is a
> >>> > > view more restrictive than Mr. Romney’s, who has said that he supports
> >>> > > exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. *
> >>> > >
> >>> > > * *Mr. Ryan’s more conservative views, which have been reflected in votes
> >>> > > that would restrict family planning financing overseas, cut off all
> >>> > federal
> >>> > > funds to Planned Parenthood and repeal President Obama’s health care
> >>> > > law<
> >>> > http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/indexhtml?inline=nyt-classifier
> >>> > >,
> >>> > > have come into sharp relief as Mr. Akin struggles for his political life.
> >>> > > Mr. Akin and Mr Ryan each have voted in this Congress for 10
> >>> > > abortion-restricting measures as well as those that limited other family
> >>> > > planning services.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney have earned praise for their positions from
> >>> > > the National Right to Life group and other anti-abortion organizations.
> >>> > > “The right-to-life Romney/Ryan ticket is now complete,” wrote Barbara
> >>> > Lyons
> >>> > > and Sue Armacost, executive director and legislative director for
> >>> > Wisconsin
> >>> > > Right to Life, on the organization’s Web site.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It is a legislative theme Democrats plan to highlight, even as House
> >>> > > Republicans try to keep the focus on economic issues.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > “All you need to know is that the House Republicans were willing to shut
> >>> > > down the government rather than fund Planned Parenthood,” said
> >>> > > Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, in an e-mail on
> >>> > > Tuesday. “This is in keeping with their efforts — whether it’s
> >>> > Congressman
> >>> > > Akin or Chairman Ryan or others — to deny investments in critical women’s
> >>> > > health services, weaken the definition of rape, and take away access to
> >>> > > preventive care like cervical and breast cancer screenings.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The House Republican agenda has troubled the half-dozen or so Republican
> >>> > > House members whose views differ from those of their colleagues.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > “I have time and again spoken out against this to leadership,” said
> >>> > > Representative Robert Dold of Illinois, who is in a tough re-election
> >>> > > battle. “I’ve tried to talk to them about the issues that we ought to be
> >>> > > moving forward on, like out-of-control spending.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Mr. Dold has voted in favor of half of the abortion restriction measures
> >>> > in
> >>> > > this Congress, far fewer than most of his colleagues. “There is no
> >>> > question
> >>> > > that there are times when I may disagree with a vote that’s brought to
> >>> > the
> >>> > > floor, he said in an interview, “and the majority of my Republican
> >>> > > colleagues, but that is just part of what we deal with every day.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > There have long been lawmakers, like Mr. Akin, whose main legislative
> >>> > > agenda centers on the abortion issue. They got a boost after the 2010
> >>> > > election when a large group of conservative members joined them.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Mr. Romney’s views align with that of the Mormon Church, which opposes
> >>> > > abortion except in cases of rape and incest or when the life of the woman
> >>> > > is in danger. He has said he is personally opposed to abortion; as a
> >>> > Mormon
> >>> > > bishop in the 1980s he attempted to talk a congregant out of terminating
> >>> > a
> >>> > > pregnancy after doctors advised her to do so because of a potentially
> >>> > > lethal blood clot.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > But abortion has proved to be a politically volatile topic for Mr.
> >>> > Romney,
> >>> > > whose evolving views have disappointed liberals and stirred distrust
> >>> > among
> >>> > > conservatives.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > In 1994, when he challenged Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Mr. Romney said he
> >>> > > would “not force our beliefs on others on that matter. In 2002, as a
> >>> > > candidate for governor, he claimed to support “the substance” of Roe v.
> >>> > > Wade. By 2005, though, when he was beginning to consider a presidential
> >>> > > run, he had reversed course and described himself as a “pro-life governor
> >>> > > in a pro-choice state.” Now, as a presidential candidate, he refers to
> >>> > > himself as solidly “pro-life.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Aides to Mr. Romney declined to say on Tuesday whether he would call on
> >>> > the
> >>> > > convention delegates to reconsider their position on abortion.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, tried
> >>> > to
> >>> > > deflect questions on behalf of Mr. Romney, saying on Fox News that “this
> >>> > is
> >>> > > the platform of the Republican
> >>> > > Party<
> >>> > http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org
> >>> > >;
> >>> > > it is not the platform of Mitt Romney.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The idea of outlawing any exceptions for abortion is not new in American
> >>> > > political discourse or in legislation, nor are proposals to narrow the
> >>> > > definition of rape to distinguish between what some call “forcible rape”
> >>> > > and cases involving statutory rape or even some types of date rape.
> >>> > > Anti-abortion activists have long been concerned that women would falsely
> >>> > > claim to have been raped to gain an exemption to terminate a pregnancy.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Historians and other experts on abortion politics say the no-exceptions
> >>> > > idea became part of the debate virtually as soon as Roe v. Wade legalized
> >>> > > abortion in 1973. “It has deep roots,” said Donald Critchlow, a historian
> >>> > > at Arizona State University who has studied abortion politics. He added,
> >>> > > “It’s appealing to segments within the Republican Party to show that
> >>> > you’re
> >>> > > pro-life.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Susan Cohen, director of government affairs for the Guttmacher
> >>> > Institute, a
> >>> > > research group in Washington that supports abortion rights, said the
> >>> > > no-exceptions idea is “not new and it’s not fringe.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > “It is something that has been part of mainstream anti-abortion
> >>> > movement,
> >>> > > she said. “The record is replete with evidence of the fact that there was
> >>> > > this no-exceptions attitude, and of course this makes logical sense from
> >>> > > the perspective of people who believe an embryo should have the same
> >>> > legal
> >>> > > status as you and I do.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > In the 1992 election, the Republican Party included in its platform
> >>> > > language opposing abortion, allowing no exceptions and calling for a
> >>> > > constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal. Similar language
> >>> > > opposing any exceptions was included in 2000 and 2004, even though George
> >>> > > W. Bush also supported outlawing abortion except in cases of rape,
> >>> > incest,
> >>> > > or when the life of the woman was in danger.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Four years ago, the Republican Party adopted a platform seeking an
> >>> > > unconditional ban on abortion, though its nominee, Senator John McCain,
> >>> > had
> >>> > > urged the party in the past to allow certain exceptions. After this
> >>> > year’s
> >>> > > abortion plank language was approved with little debate, the chairman of
> >>> > > the platform committee, Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, praised the
> >>> > > committee for “affirming our respect for human life.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Pam Belluck and Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> >>> > > art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > =======================================================
> >>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>> > http://www.fsrnet/
> >>> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> > =======================================================
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >=======================================================
> >List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >=======================================================
> ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net/
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list