Skip to main content

Chart showing public support for abortion exemptions
Last week, the Republican Party officially endorsed the Todd Akin position on abortion. That is, no abortion ever, under any circumstances. And they want it written into the Constitution.

But no sooner had they agreed that yup, making women carry a pregnancy to term even if it kills them seems like a perfectly reasonable "pro-life" position, then Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was lecturing the country about the "new obsession [with] the platform of the Republican Party on abortion, which is an obsession."

Then RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer tried to explain that just because the platform does not include any exceptions doesn't mean the platform does not include any exceptions.

Then Mitt Romney gave an interview in which he demanded that he not be asked any questions about abortion because, you know, awkward.

So why don't Republicans, including Romney, want to talk about their ridiculous views on abortion? As Steve Benen noted and showed with the chart above, it's pretty obvious:

In other words, the Akin/Paul-Ryan/GOP-platform position on abortion is really unpopular.
Yup. That about sums it up. No wonder Republicans don't want to talk about it.

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  all the fetus graphs are not the right height /nt (15+ / 0-)

    Don't roof rack me bro', Now the brown's comin' down; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:29:40 AM PDT

  •  And you know what's scary? That issue has (28+ / 0-)

    been in their platform since 1980!

    How did a whole generation grow up - not noticing that?

    •  As One of the Many Hair-torn, Hoarse Whiney Purity (4+ / 0-)

      trolls who have been pouting for 40 years for not getting our "way" from the Democrats, it took a lot of media and Democratic Party determination to make sure a generation would grow up not knowing this.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:54:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, their anti-abortion stance started (9+ / 0-)

      in their 1976 platform, although it was not a featured item.  It was listed as one of:

      many elements that will make our country a more hospitable environment for family life—


      a position on abortion that values human life;

      The affirmation of their
      support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children
      language was first introduced in the 1980 platform and their position has been getting more and more restrictive ever since.

      Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

      by sjburnman on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:57:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I somehow missed the two other paragraphs (9+ / 0-)

        in the 1976 Republican Party Platform that discussed abortion.  This is what they said (emphasis mine):

        The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court's decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.

        We protest the Supreme Court's intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents' obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.

        The ideas expressed in the emphasized sentences were never again to be expressed as a part of the Republican party's thinking on abortion.  This was the beginning of the end for choice as an option, as far as the Republican party was concerned.

        Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

        by sjburnman on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 12:02:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Following the logical progression here, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the 2024 GOP platform will call for women to be hung, drawn and quartered if they fail to carry every fertilized egg to term. The Republican party emphasized that this position should not be considered anti-women, but rather pro rabid lunatics.

  •  That pesky majority of the population... (17+ / 0-)

    those womenfolk actually want to control their body and their health choices.
    The Rethugs are quite literally on the wrong side of history in every way and I, for one can't wait for them to have no hold on any power whatsoever...period.

    "We're right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo! And somebody's giving booze to these goddamn things!"-Hunter S. Thompson ;-)>

    by rogerdaddy on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:34:29 AM PDT

  •  We don't talk about some planks in polite company (5+ / 0-)

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:39:42 AM PDT

  •  Why would ANYONE... (10+ / 0-)

    at least why would any sane person want to ban abortion in case of rape? Who would be so cruel as to expect a crime victim to carry the evidence of that crime with her?

    Todd Akin of course...we know that...but that 20% who favor banning abortion for victims of rape? That's just twisted.

    •  Because You're Killing an Innocent Baby. (6+ / 0-)

      Once you start from the premise that it's full personhood at penetration, abortion is exactly equal to murder in all cases.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some Murder is Sanctioned By the State (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Nimbus, Mayfly, Candide08

        The US has never held that taking human life is always wrong. We allow people to kill in self-defense. We allow people to refuse lifesaving treatment. We empower police and soldiers to kill people. The state is allowed to put to death people who are convicted of certain crimes.

        We as society do not believe that all life is of equal value deserving unconditional respect. Even if we as a society agree that a fertilized cell is a human life, that is only the starting point of an ethical discussion not the winning point.

        •  That's why the anti-choice people use the word, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Candide08, dfe, BachFan, glitterscale

          "innocent".  "Innocent human life" must be protected. And who is innocent?  Not born babies, who may go hungry or suffer from lack of health care.  Once those little rascals are born they are infected with "original sin."

          Nope. The only "innocent human life" are fertilized eggs and fetuses.  And the great and convenient fact about that "innocent life" is that it is contained within a woman and costs the Republican Party/American society nothing for support.

          "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

          by Mayfly on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:54:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why I don't start from that premise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It represents a particular religious viewpoint, not shared even among the Abrahamic religions. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the Jewish view on these matters is that a fetus becomes a person at birth, not before.

    •  even worse (if you can believe it) is the life of (8+ / 0-)

      the pregnant woman. No one seems to be pointing this out, until this diary. Kaili doesn't assume, as so many others have, that Republicans would allow an abortion if the woman's life was in danger. If a fetus is made legally a human being and a U.S. citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof, there is nothing in anything the Republicans have said that deals with what happens if the pregnancy becomes a danger to the woman. Presumably it would be up to each state? Or would it be done on a case by case basis with a woman having to petition and go through the courts to get permission to have an abortion (by which time she might be dead).
      And if anyone thinks this is far-fetched, I refer them to the Catholic church's views on this re: excommunicating the nun who authorized an abortion performed to save the life of the mother:

      "She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."
      And when it comes to the health of the woman -- what if a woman has cancer that will grow faster if she's pregnant -- not immediately life-threatening but it may mean the cancer will be beyond treatment by the time the pregnancy is over. What about an ectopic pregnancy? What about a woman carrying multiple (quadruplets, quintuplets, and beyond) embryos because of fertility treatment -- they would force a woman to carry multiple fetuses through a pregnancy even if there were serious negative consequences to her health. My bet is that under Republican rule (and no mistake, it would be rule), there would be no exceptions made for anything other than immediate danger to the life of the woman, and even then, they might refuse permission.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:22:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the official word from a local (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamar, kyril, glitterscale

        Catholic hospital, Franciscan Medical Group, taken from their Policy and Procedure Manual:

        -    Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
        -    In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.
        For this hospital it looks as if chemo might be OK but an ectopic pregnancy would be a death sentence. I suspect the Republicans would use something like this as a model.

        I came for the politics and stayed for the science.

        by bwren on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:46:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so chemo is okay because it might damage the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bwren, kyril, glitterscale

          fetus but not kill it.
          Sounds like they would agree with excommunicating that poor nun/administrator of the hospital in Arizona because she authorized the abortion that saved the life of the woman (who already had 4 children).
          They would rather that a woman lose her life (knowing that would kill the fetus anyway) and 4 children lose their mother than have a live-saving abortion.
          Crazy. beyond crazy.

          We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

          by Tamar on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:51:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  In the olden days knowledgeable women advised (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Tamar, BachFan, glitterscale

        their pregnant kin and friends to select a Jewish physician, because he (rarely, she) would protect the life of the woman, whereas some Christian physicians would sacrifice the woman (even if she had young children depending on her) for the fetus if it came to an either/or situation.

        "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

        by Mayfly on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ectopic pregnancy... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamar, BachFan, Williston Barrett

        When Catholics and Evangelicals get together to run countries (e.g. Chile), they ban treatment even of ectopic pregnancies until the fallopian tube ruptures.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ectopic Pregnancies are not rare (6+ / 0-)

        In North America there are approximately 20 ectopic pregnancies out of every 1000 pregnancies which translates into over 100,000 ectopic pregnancies in the US each year. Thanks to early identification and surgical removal of the fetus, only 25-30 women die a year due to an ectopic pregnancy.

        Once upon a time, I would have assumed that an exception for this condition would have been part of any anti-abortion bill since the condition is not in the least ambiguous, the fetus has no chance to survive to viability and the mother's death is certain. Now, I assume nothing. Apparently the Republicans want to return us to the 19th Century were pregnancy was a dangerous time that could easily end a women's life.

        •  I have a friend who had several ectopic pregnanies (4+ / 0-)

          (and got necessary treatment). This was a woman who desperately wanted to have children, ended up adopting several and was finally able to carry a pregnancy to term.
          Republican policies would have killed her -- an extremely good person, doing good work and a wonderful mother to children originally from very difficult circumstances.
          We need more people like her, not fewer. She should be the kind of person held up as an example by religious leaders. Yet, if she were a Catholic, her church would condemn her for not dying.

          We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

          by Tamar on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 03:58:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Preibus' point about obsession is interesting, as (5+ / 0-)

    the anti woman position is an obsession with a considerable part of the party he leads as a figurehead. Apparently obsessions are OK for his side but stupid for anyone else. He'd see how much an obsession it is if he said one single word to dilute the cruelty of the position, or if the plank were deleted or even edited.

    Please add the incest issue to your bar chart. That's in a lot of cases a phrasing of child abuse of female children.

  •  Actually heard a GnoPer say that the platform was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, phrogge prince, Mayfly

    from the Republican party and Mittbot has his own ideas.  Huh, why have the party or the platform then.  Let's just elect us an absolute dictator who can do as he pleases.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:54:42 AM PDT

  •  This is dangerous. (16+ / 0-)

    We're over here arguing when there should and shouldn't be exceptions to a hypothetical ban on abortion, which moves the Overton window and makes the idea of "No abortions unless" more mainstream.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 10:57:44 AM PDT

    •  Thank you, you smart thing. (11+ / 0-)

      No discussion.  

      My sexual life is private and not subject to public or religious review.  

      Anyone who steps into my sexuality without a request from me to do so is a rapist.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 12:31:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Post Script. (4+ / 0-)

        Be Republicanesque. Show some discipline.  

        Memorize this meme above and recite it whenever the word "abortion" is used, no matter the circumstances.

        Refuse to say anything else. Repeat as needed.

        The only choice you leave the Other is arguing with you.  And that is the trick that defeats Progressives all the time.  You all talk too fricking much.

        I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

        by CherryTheTart on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 12:36:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We can pull the window back though (4+ / 0-)

      Try this, "They are so far out, so out of touch with reality, how can you take anything they say about this issue seriously?"

      Use their stupidity against them, make people realize they're not wrong on just this bit, but about EVERYTHING. Make Republicans own the stupid. All of it.

      Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

      by ontheleftcoast on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:07:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ultimately it's dangerous to them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, Americantrueandblue

      Because no one is really asking them the question, how exactly can you ban abortions but then provide them for rape victims and for the 'health of the mother.'  Who in the hell determines a legal abortion in that case?  Doctors?  A tribunal?  What the hell?  Why aren't we asking them these questions instead of letting these fallacies continue?  

      Yes, let's talk excessively about the 'exemptions.'  Because it exposes what the "pro-life" movement is about.  They swell their numbers with people who believe there is a way to be moderate about this when there isn't.  It's either women with rights or women without rights.  

      When the truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:48:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly! Exceptions? IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, kestrel9000, CherryTheTart

      Fuck exceptions!

      The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

      by psnyder on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 04:58:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's some graph (0+ / 0-)

    And at least 50% of the 10% in each column is remarkably made up of Republican elected officials.

  •  9% think it should be illegal to save the mother? (6+ / 0-)

    Seriously?  9 % of people think abortion should be illegal even to save the mother's life.  That's some perverse dedication.

    •  Well, there's a 50% chance the baby might be male. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly, atana
      •  Actually, I heard that outside a clinic once. A (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, BachFan

        male protester screamed at a woman entering the clinic--"Don't kill your baby--it might be a boy!" There was an instant of silence, and all the women present--including protesters--turned to look at him.  

        Don't know if that changed any minds among the anti-choice women--maybe not.  But it gave them pause for a moment.

        "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

        by Mayfly on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 03:13:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  see my comment above re: Catholic church -- (0+ / 0-)

      or read what the Church itself says in this article:

      We're talking about a mainstream church here, not some fringe religious sect like the Westboro Baptist Church. This view comes straight from the hierarchy of one of the main religions in the world.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:29:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Probably 9% think women shouldn't vote either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And it's probably the same 9%.  

      You’re Damn Right Obama Cares. Why Doesn’t Romney?. ~HELEN of

      by denig on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:39:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What about atheists, muslims, buddhists and... (0+ / 0-)

    LGBTIQ people? Would "THOSE PEOPLE" be exceptions?

    Hah. Meh. Romney.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Life of mother (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose

    So who are these 9% or so of people who think it's OK to force a woman to have a baby even though it will kill her?  Um...hello?  If mom dies, so does baby.  

  •  GOP platform also wants Federal law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phrogge prince, Desert Rose, BachFan

    to outlaw all morning after pills, such as RU486.

    This item in the platform does not receive enough attention or press coverage.

  •  How is it a political party doesn't stand (0+ / 0-)

    for what it stands for in its official platform?

    •  We'll see what the democratic platform says (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      or includes with regard to voter ID. 75% of the people in the U.S. believe people should have to show an ID to vote.

      I doubt democrats will include this in their platform.  But, we'll see.

      The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

      by commonsensically on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:33:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, son, you see... (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        voter fraud is practically non-existent. Look it up. you're a big boy in college, gettin' you a good education, you can do the research.
        Voter ID is not only unnecessary, it's a waste of time and money. There is more voter suppression than fraud. And THAT is committed by the right wing.
        So...I guess you're an idiot!

        Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

        by MA Liberal on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 11:22:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Dems should give a prime time slot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose, Williston Barrett

    at their convention to someone reading lowlights of the GOP platform. It would be an extremely effective campaign spot. Just make sure they mention the GOP in every sentence.

    Republicans believe you need an ID to vote but you can donate millions to any candidate completely anonymously. (h/t jbou)

    by Calouste on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:22:02 PM PDT

  •  "It will be left up to the states"... (0+ / 0-)

    this is one dodge I am seeing being pushed. You see, while Mitt "the reasonable Republican" Romney is allegedly "in favor of exceptions", but the Federal platform includes none so the states can decide how to implement a ban. Of course, we all know that GOPer states will go for the full crazy - letting mothers die.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

  •  This stuff drives me crazy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CarolinNJ, BachFan

    because anyone who thinks they can ban abortions but somehow keep 'exemptions' in these cases is deluding themselves.  In other words, there is actually VERY LITTLE support out there for a real abortion ban.  The freaks pushing 'Pro-Life' are a tiny minority who have swelled their apparent numbers with delusional people who haven't thought it through.  

    Ask people how a rape victim is assured of getting an abortion if they believe this sick fantasy is somehow workable.  There is no such thing as a 'moderate pro-lifer.'  Just extremists and the people they've fooled.  

    When the truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:32:12 PM PDT

  •  Romney and Ryan were endorsed by Willke (0+ / 0-)

    Romney has TWICE asked for and received an endorsement from John C. Willke, in 2007 and in 2011.

    Ryan has also recently been endorsed (separately) by Willke.

    John Willke was the head of National Right to Life for 10 years, and is the source of Todd Akin's belief that "women do not become pregnant after 'legitimate rape.'"

    If you made this stuff up, people would say you are crazy.

    The Republicans are DISGUSTING!

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

    by BornDuringWWII on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:32:29 PM PDT

  •  OMG (0+ / 0-)

    If the Dems don't make 2008 the last time the repub. platform was not a major issue than they, the Dems, deserve to lose. The repubs. open the can of worms and it is up to us and all those who have any degree of decency to make this a MAJOR ISSUE in this campaign. We cannot let these ignorant, mysoginistic bastards keep getting away with this!!!!!!!!!!!!

  •  "Even if it kills them..." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CarolinNJ, BachFan

    should read: "even if it kills them and the fetus."

    Contrary to unpopular belief, fetuses don't just continue to gestate normally inside dead women.

    "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

    by kyril on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:39:02 PM PDT

  •  Which Republicans crafted the platform? Is there a (0+ / 0-)

    link for that?  for their names?

    You’re Damn Right Obama Cares. Why Doesn’t Romney?. ~HELEN of

    by denig on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:41:50 PM PDT

  •  This whole stupid debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Has been a depressing saga over 40 years with the initiative oscillating between Democrats and Republicans. Basically it's a story of two parties with comparitively consistent moral positions on the matter duelling over the sympathies of a general public that is profoundly confused, contradictory, and incoherent on the issue. Right now the Republicans are suffering because the extremity of their position has become salient, but then the issue turn the heat on the Democrats when the Republicans start talking about late term and "partial birth" and "abortion of convenience" and all the things that they do.

    There's a moderate position which might accord with the inclinations of the great middle of the public which views abortion as murder when it's a slut who has slept around, and thus "deserves" to be pregnant, and which views abortion as a choice when it's a rape victim who presumably doesn't, but good luck trying to make it an intellectually coherent position in order to make it the basis of a moderate abortion policy, because I certainly can't.

  •  who agrees to interview this man when (0+ / 0-)

    he stipulates right up front what you can and cannot ask him about?

    Why do we even talk about freedom of the press when it's a freedom they are ready to discard themselves at the drop of a hat?

    Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

    by Keith930 on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:47:06 PM PDT

  •  You're arguing on Republican terms. I support any (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    woman's right to abort.  The only restraints I would consider are sound medical practice, which precludes third trimester abortions except in extreme circumstances.  I also support child and parent support from the government, in whatever form is needed.  I do not support abandoning children and parents right after the baby drops into the doctor's hands.  And I do not support the perverts and sexual sadists among the political class.

    Acceleration is a thrill, but velocity gets you there

    by CarolinNJ on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:52:11 PM PDT

  •  You Will Only Ask us to Talk About Those Things (0+ / 0-)

    We tell you to ask us to talk about.  And well get back to you on what those things are, for now just ask us about how we deal  with being so charming and good looking and how evil Obama is.

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: []

    by Beetwasher on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 02:52:43 PM PDT

  •  First photo of Rmoney addressing the RNC! (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt Brother is watching you!


    (romney)/RYAN 2012 - I could never eat as much as I'd like to vomit.

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

  •  put this together with Romney's (0+ / 0-)

    recent flip-flop on abortion, and you have a nominee and party platform at odds.

    As of right now, I loathe all anti-choice politicians with an intensity greater than the radiation output of a thousand suns. 3.13.12

    by GenuineRisk on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

  •  Under "W" the congress could have offered (0+ / 0-)

    a pro life constitutional amendment. But it never happened.  Under W he had both houses for 6 years.

    Never happened.

    It is a great issue to get the fundies to the polls.  So don't look for an amendment even if the 'Cons are able to suppress enough votes and flip enough votes to win.

    Psst!!!......Willard let us see your income taxes.

    by wbishop3 on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 04:03:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site