RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rosen writes: "Americans have grown more supportive of same -sex marriages, gun control, immigration reform and even taxes on the wealthiest individuals. Why, then, have the cultural and political wars over abortion accelerated?"

Abortion protesters on both sides of the issue in front of the Supreme Court. (photo: Getty Images)
Abortion protesters on both sides of the issue in front of the Supreme Court. (photo: Getty Images)

Why the Relentless Assault on Abortion in the United States?

By Ruth Rosen, Open Democracy

23 July 13


Americans have grown more supportive of same -sex marriages, gun control, immigration reform and even taxes on the wealthiest individuals. Why, then, have the cultural and political wars over abortion accelerated?

mericans have become more liberal, despite the rise of the Tea Party and the election of some of their right-wing politicians. Teenagers can now buy "morning after" emergency contraception pills without consulting a physician or a pharmacist. The Supreme Court recently struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex marriages. It also upheld the right of same-sex couples in California to wed. As of July 2013, there are now 13 states that permit same-sex marriages. Despite the gridlock caused by Republicans in Congress, more Americans than ever support gun control, immigration reform, same-sex marriage and taxes on the wealthiest individuals. This is why Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.

Why then, does state after state attempt to restrict women's access to abortion?

There are several answers. David Leonhardt, the Washington Bureau Chief of the New York Times argues that "Abortion is the relatively rare issue in which the cliché is true: public opinion does actually rest about midway between the parties' platforms."

He is right; Democrats support abortion, even during the third trimester, while Republicans seek to make all abortions illegal. The truth is, Americans are deeply divided over abortion. Polls consistently reveal that they are no more likely to support abortion than oppose it. According to recent Gallup polls, about 60 % of the population supports a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester (or the first 12 weeks) and 64 % believe that an abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Only 29% of those polled, however, want to repeal Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal.

Much has changed since the late 1960s when women and physicians fought for the right to abortion, which the Supreme Court legalized in its landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, in 1973. With the advanced technology of sonograms, both women and men can see that the fetus is not an abstraction, but an actual growing life. The question for many, then, is when do the rights of the growing fetus trump the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Is it at 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Always? Or never?

Politics, too, has also transformed the political culture. Katha Pollitt, the well-known columnist of the Nation magazine, notes that as a result of the 2010 elections, right-wing Republicans flooded the state legislatures, thereby gaining new power to pass legislation that restricted abortions. The 2012 elections, unfortunately, didn't change the Republican - controlled state legislatures.

Another reason states have been able to limit access to abortion is that opponents have been extremely successful at conflating all abortions with the late-term, procedures performed during the third trimester. Though these are rare, they are nevertheless done. Often the woman involved has just discovered that the fetus has an incurable disease, or will be born dead. Nevertheless, the procedure itself is nothing like an abortion performed when a woman is six weeks pregnant.

This was dramatized in May, 2013 when the nation watched in horror as prosecutors described how Dr. Kermit Gosnell essentially murdered a baby born alive in a botched abortion. The baby would have survived if the doctor hadn't "snipped" its neck with scissors. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. This is hardly the typical late-term abortion, but it certainly caused many people, including many liberal supporters, to re-visit the question, at what point should abortion be illegal? Liberal, pro-choice Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson, for example, wrote, "There's almost no difference between killing a baby accidentally born alive in a late-term abortion, as Gosnell stands accused of, and killing the same baby in the womb, as more skilled doctors can do."

Carole Joffe, author of Dispatches from the Abortion Wars, and a professor at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, has championed women's right to abortion during her entire career. Commenting on the Gosnell case, she wrote,

"This was truly a chamber of horrors: a filthy facility, with blood - stained blankets and furniture, unsterilized instruments, and cat feces left unattended. Most seriously, there was a jaw dropping disregard of both the law and prevailing standards of medical care. Untrained personnel undertook complex medical procedures, such as the administration of anesthesia, and the doctor in question repeatedly performed illegal (post-viability) abortions, by a unique and ghastly method of delivering live babies and then severing their spinal cord."

But she was also quick to point out that such a gruesome scene would never take place in a society that makes abortion accessible, safe and legal:

"That such clinics can flourish until the inevitable disaster occurs…is a ‘perfect storm' caused by the marginalization of abortion care from mainstream medicine, the lack of universal health care in the United States, and the particular difficulties facing undocumented immigrants in obtaining health care."

In late June. Americans watched another drama unfold as Texas tried to pass one of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills in the nation. Texas State Senator Wendy Davis successfully tried to filibuster (stop) a vote on the legislation. This required that she stand while speaking for 11 hours, because Texas Senate rules forbid someone to sit or to use the bathroom while engaged in a filibuster. Her heroic efforts successfully halted a vote on the legislation. But the bill eventually passed in a special session and will " ban abortion after the 20th weeks of pregnancy, require doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, limit abortion to surgical centres, and stipulate that doctors must monitor even non-surgical abortions." The legislation will effectively close down most abortion providers in the state. Supporters of the right to abortion are now appealing this legislation to higher courts and then, if possible, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a result of these technological and political changes, and the grotesque publicity surrounding the Gosnell case, many states, including Arizona, Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina, have seriously limited women's access to abortion. Alina Salignoff, Vice President and Director of the Women's Health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation has been tracing these state efforts for years. She explained to me how,

"Anti-abortion activists have adopted multiple approaches to restrict access by targeting different fronts, including increasing the requirements on both the facilities and physicians that provide abortions to women, as they have done in Texas; and making abortion more difficult for women to obtain by imposing waiting periods, sonograms, gestational limits and requirements for parental consent or notification in the cases of teens. More recently, states have begun to enact legislation that bans private insurance coverage or plans that will be available to individuals as a result of health reform."

Sonograms, politics, right-wing state legislatures, the Gosnell horror—all of these have contributed to America's continuing abortion wars. But there is one more reason why abortion is such a contentious issue in the United States. Both the birth control Pill, made available in 1961, and the legalization of abortion in 1973 by the Supreme Court's landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, ruptured the historic tie between sex and reproduction.

Such a dramatic change naturally disturbed many people. Sex could now be for pleasure, rather than for reproduction. And it was women who had gained the new sexual freedom, not men.

Ever since 1973, abortion has become a symbol of women' freedom to control their bodies and their reproductive choices, their growing economic independence, and their greater visibility as politicians, professionals, lawyers, professors, and presidents of universities and corporations. Their sexual freedom is not new; but it still symbolizes the fact that men can no longer control their bodies or their choices to have children. They can control their own destiny, and that is what Republicans would like to end.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, "in the first six months of 2013, states enacted 106 provisions related to reproductive health and rights; issues related to abortion, family planning funding, and sex eduction. Only forty three provisions aimed at restiricting acces to abortion. Notice that most of these provisions tried to eliminate contraception and sex education, not just abortion. They want to curtail women's sexuality by eliminating contraception as well.

The fact is, American culture is highly sexualised, but its people are still profoundly uncomfortable about sex in general, and with women's sexuality, in particular. Fear of women's sexuality is not, of course, the only reason Americans are obsessed about abortion. But along with changes in technology, politics, and debates over late-term abortions, attitudes towards women's sexual freedom - felt and expressed by large populations of both men and women - is one important reason that abortion, and not same sex marriage, still remains the most divisive social issue in American political culture your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+35 # CAMUS1111 2013-07-23 13:40
Under-educated right wing extremists can't (and, for the most part, don't want to) discern the difference between a zygote and a 2 year-old.
+37 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-07-23 22:36
I often thought that to be a good Republican, one must: 1. Hate 2. One must hate one's fellow man, especially the worker. 3. Hate government, but elect those who hate government to run the government. 4. Gotta hate abortion. Love life before the child is born, but then despise the child after birth and into young adulthood by killing them off in illegal wars or otherwise. (Yes, almost 1/2 Democrats in the House and the Senante voted for war funding)I was born a Republican but got the hell out of the party after I graduated from a major university. I merely identify muself as a Progressive, and it is a great way to live. Imagine getting out of hatred, the religion of Republicanism, and think about real life issues like:1. building an honorable school system which concentrates on getting kids excited about math and science. Improving our student's math, science scores which now rank as 25th in the world. 2. Rebuilding our infrastructure. 3. Creating High speed rail. 4. And yes, buying billboard space to call out those politicians, by name, who want to destroy our Democracy which is so fragile. We do not have to put up with the Republican "crap" slogans like, "this is the greatest country in the world" while the Conservatives are busy daily raping our country. Yes, Obama, as regards turning your head and looking the other way, sticking your head in the sand while "fracking" destroys large pieces of our once beautiful homeland. Maybe Obama should
+24 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-07-23 22:37
Eldon Bloedorn (Cont.)
Stick his head in a fracking well. See what's go'n . Check out the air quality. Then, take some air time and give us a "full report."
+50 # ghostperson 2013-07-23 21:53
I will accept the legitimacy of discussing women's sexuality and reproductive freedom when we have the same discussion about men.

I am nearing my 7th decade on this planet and am sick of this bull shit.
+30 # Phlippinout 2013-07-23 23:50
I'm with you! This is absolute dark ages bullshit! Any self respecting woman and woman loving men should stand up to this harassment. What can you expect from a country that never ratified the ERA?
-1 # Rick Levy 2013-07-24 01:46
I am likewise nearing my 7th decade on this planet and am also sick of this bullshit.

And I am also sick of male bashers for blaming only men for anti-choice legislation. And last I heard, the Republican Party is not an all-male organization.
+2 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:30
Quoting Rick Levy:
I am likewise nearing my 7th decade on this planet and am also sick of this bullshit.

And I am also sick of male bashers for blaming only men for anti-choice legislation. And last I heard, the Republican Party is not an all-male organization.

There are female satellite girls who think their only route to power is through 'their' men, but it is the males lile Akin, Walker et al that are disgusting misogynists that sem to have an obsession with controlling women and their bodies. Time to deal with it -- perhaps they are morelikely to listen to males like you, since they clearly do not gie a rat's ass what women have to say on these matters.
+4 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:27
Quoting ghostperson:
I will accept the legitimacy of discussing women's sexuality and reproductive freedom when we have the same discussion about men.

I am nearing my 7th decade on this planet and am sick of this bull shit.

Time to require ultrasound wands up their prostates and a psychiatric evaluation of males over 60 that wish to use Viagra!
-49 # ProLife Progressive 2013-07-23 22:09
The author engages in several unsupported assumptions. First that Americans believe a woman's rights and success in life are dependent on her ability to be unencumbered by children. Second, that setting basic medical safety standards for abortion clinics is will put all women's health clinics out of business; which if true, should outrage women who are entitled to the same safe medical care as men. Third, that redistricting in state legislators was not the result of pro-life men and women making their voices heard at the ballot box which created a mandate for the pro-life initiatives throughout the country. Finally, that all women and men who are pro-life are Neanderthals who hate sexual freedom, contraceptives and women. Pro-life progressives are increasing in numbers as we promote a consistent life ethic that encourages sexual responsibility, not exploitation of women, and support true diversity; not abortions which are increasingly sought based on gender, ethnicity, and encouraged for parents who are poor or who will have children who may have special needs.
+38 # AnastasiaP 2013-07-23 23:43
The author's aims are not "unsupported."

A woman's success in life is connected to, i not entirely dependent on, her ability to choose when she has children and how many she has. That has been shown in studies over and over.

You are incorrect that these laws are setting "basic medical safety standards." They are creating unnecessary obstacles designed to be insurmountable so that clinics close — and they are unrelated to health or safety. Women SHOULD be outraged that these laws make them even more second-class to men than they already are.

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that anti-choice zealots are Neanderthals who are distinctly NOT "pro-life." That has become clear in the last two years, as the writer of the article relates. The attempts to outlaw comprehensive sex education and access to affordable contraception are virtually welded to these anti-choice measures.

Finally, until our society prioritizes living-wage jobs, access to education and health care, and social services for those in need, it's a rational decision for a poor women or one who may give birth to a special-needs child to have an abortion, because there's little help for her once that fetus is born.

"Pro-life" (anti-woman) progressives, if such exist, are scarcer than hen's teeth. I've never met one. I have my doubts that you are a "pro-life progressive," because most of the opinions you express here fall on the conservative side of the spectrum.
+4 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:38
These so-called conservatives (i.e., actually right wing radical extremists) are certainly not 'pro-life' but rather pro-forced birth! They do not care what happens to the so-called 'baby' when it is actually born, or to its 'mother' (unwilling Petri dish) ; nor do they care about KILLING sometimes/frequ ently innocent prisoners (see Texas on this) or young men and women who have no alternatives in life except to become soldiers so they can make a living etc.
And the police shills for the wealthy and powerful have no operative conscience whenn spraying mace into the eyes of young people exercising what is supposed to be their democratic right to speak, protest, demonstrate (you know, the first amendment rights? etc. that constitute our loudly touted FREEDOM)?? )
+50 # mra500 2013-07-23 23:54
Just a simple reminder:

A fetus is NOT a baby.
It is part of a woman’s body until it is born.

A fetus does not have an independent life -
it is entirely supported by the woman, and only becomes a baby when it is born.

Just because you can see a sonogram of a fetus does not make it independent.
It is just a common part of a woman’s body.

A woman has every right to decide what happens to her body.
Most women want to let a fetus grow, be born, and become an independent person, a baby.

Women do not have abortions for fun, but for good reasons.

She was raped.
She is too ill to survive a pregnancy or too weak for the tremendous physical challenge of childbirth.
She is too poor to support a child.
She is too young.
The fetus is badly malformed, or has a serious illness, or has already died.

Many people want to ignore the woman and focus only on the fetus.
But they are mistaken.
Just because a sperm and egg merge does not mean a woman must let that embryo become a fetus and then be born.
It’s all happening in a woman’s body – and all those cells belong to her.
She gets to decide what happens inside her body – and no one else.

A woman has every right to terminate a pregnancy because a fetus is part of her body. It is not an independent person.
It is not a baby until it is born.
+12 # cvahr2 2013-07-24 01:32
Brilliantly stated mra500 - thank you!
-20 # Depressionborn 2013-07-24 12:44
More simple than brilliant.

Lots of us are dependent, born babes as much as unborn. In fact both are totally dependent. How many of us do you want killed. If mra is right, and you are dependent on my taxes, can I order your death? mra seems to be saying so.

"all those cells belong to her" sounds like plantation owners stalking about their slaves. No one can own another, and babies are people, and alive. Dred Scott was reversed, thank god, so too will Roe Wade go down to ignoble defeat.

A baby deserves to live.
+14 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-07-24 14:42
Ahh, a true noble. Let's start a new chant:"save the babies, save the babies!" When in hell did a Republican ever chant, "save the young men and women! Save the young men and women! Don't kill them in wars! Don't kill them in wars!" If Republicans have ideas that are good the the country rather than merely, just protecting babies until they are ready to die in another war, I'll listen. This is laughable, Bush and Cheney chanting, "save our young men and women" as they leave on a death and disability airplane flight to start another war.
-8 # The Voice of Reason 2013-07-25 05:29
War is another issue altogether. Two evils do not make one righteous. Let's stop the wars and the abortions. Ever thought of that one?
+5 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:41
Quoting The Voice of Reason:
War is another issue altogether. Two evils do not make one righteous. Let's stop the wars and the abortions. Ever thought of that one?

No, they are the same issue -- what does 'pro-"life" really mean, nto your narrow construct.
-4 # The Voice of Reason 2013-07-25 20:10
You're the one who says that war justifies aborting a fetus. What a hypocritical construct. Pro life means no war, no abortions.
-3 # JackB 2013-07-26 14:51
What do WWI, WWII, Korea & Vietnam have in common besides being wars? --- They were all brought to you by Democrats.

So --- stand tall - stomach in - chest out - & chant "Save the young men & women!" Might as well go the whole nine yards & throw in the children too - "Save the young men & women & the children too".

BTW - your post has nothing to do with abortion. Don't despair - it was funny.
+6 # mra500 2013-07-24 23:45
Depressionborn, you really miss the point. A fetus is not another person - it is part of a woman's body. Open up your mind - fetuses are not separate people. Slaves were living, breathing humans who existed outside of their mothers' bodies.

You and you ilk ignore the woman. You don't care whether living women die or not.

But tell me this, you who believe so strongly in letting all those fetuses come to term and live - tell me what you do to help children who are already born and living outside of their mothers' bodies. How many poor unwanted children have you personally adopted? How many do you support? Do you send a large portion of your income to support the poor unwanted children in the Catholic countries? I suspect that you really don't do much to help all those unwanted children once they are born. Listen, unless you can honestly tell us that you are spending about 20% of your income on supporting poor children, unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, I think we can disregard anything you say.
-3 # JackB 2013-07-26 15:12
A fetus is another person. You don't have to like it but it is the case.

A true liberal. YOU decide whose babies are unwanted. YOU decide the economic conditions that will allow a baby to be born. I bet you set some time aside each week to advise God.

Are you going to spend 20% of your income to support the folks who end up on the dole due to Divine Barry's amnesty program? Do you spend 20% now to help with welfare? Obviously I am referring to VOLUNTARY contributions.
+3 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:40
a foetus or embryo is not a 'baby' till it is viable on its own; a 13 yr. old incested girl, or woman whose life is in danger et al is not a Petri dish for use by some authoritarian male.
-7 # JackB 2013-07-25 00:59
A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is a separate, distinct entity hosted in a woman's body. A tooth, stomach, tongue, arm, leg et al are parts of a woman's body & exist whether or not she ever gets pregnant.

Even though it is supported by the woman a fetus does have an independent life - it is sort of renting a room for nine months. It is not a common part of a woman's body. If it was every woman would be born with one.

Under reasons for having an abortion you left out - just don't want the child. had too much to drink or it will ruin my social life.

Left alone an embryo will become a child. The pro-abortion world claims there is a line crossed during pregnancy where the fetus becomes human. There is no evidence for the existence of this line but it is a damned convenient supposition. Just say - here is the line - anything to this side is non-human so do what you want. If the current position of the line is inconvenient - move it. It's just an arbitrary convenience.

BTW - if you cannot PROVE the line exists & PROVE that the fetus transits from non-human to human &, if so, exactly when it happens then you have a human being from embryo to birth & destroying it is murder.
+3 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:48
This is a specious argument. Males especially, but even other women do not have the right to take over a woman's body not their own.
An embryo cannot live on its own --- is not viable until a woman decides to allow it to be a parasite in her body for nine months.'
How would YOU, as a male, like to be told (by some crass unqualified politician no less) that since some spectacular athlete needed YOUR kidney and you would only have to be attached to him for say, nine months, and you wouldn't, mostly , be 'harmed' thoughyou'd have to give up your life/lifestyle for that period, the government had thte right to commandeeer your body?
-3 # JackB 2013-07-26 15:25
An embryo cannot live on its own. A fetus cannot live on its own. A baby cannot live on its own. A toddler cannot live on its own.

Each stage reflects a different level of independence but, in reality, not much.

A fetus will die quickly but a baby will live for a while. None of the stages I mentioned is capable of self-sufficienc y. They all need a support structure. An embryo & fetus get that in the womb.

Life is not fair. I had a granddaughter die of SIDS at two months. I saw kids die in combat. I saw friends die early of cancer. Life was not fair to them. Depending on one's point of view either God or Mother Nature was unfair to women.

However I do not see that unfairness as a justification for taking the life of an innocent entity to sort of "balance the books".
-8 # The Voice of Reason 2013-07-25 05:27
I notice there are no statistics in either your post or the article above. Last time I googled it, the abortion rate was over 800,000 per year in the U.S. And the main reasons given were in fact delayed birth control. Very few rape, incest, or medically necessary to save the woman who is not a mother because, according to you, there is no life in her body.

Tell me, what is 'safe' about abortions? The death of an accident. Wow. The value of human life is really low in the liberal camp. You guys need to look at what you're doing and stop running to the 'we do whatever we want' trough.
0 # Kimberly999 2013-07-31 18:41
Well said, I would like to add that meth-heads, alcoholics and drug addicts generally don't make good parents. Children born after gestation in these toxic conditions will have all sorts f problems that will weigh on them for their lifetime and on their community resources as well.
+31 # geraldom 2013-07-24 00:07
My theory is this. The Republican Party has a very strong and very loyal voting base in the extreme Christian sects, and these Christian sects are very strongly and very much against abortion.

As a result of the massive betrayal of their voting base between January of 2009 and November of 2010, the Democrats lost total control of many of the critical battleground states in the north and, in the southern states where they had some influence, some control, they lost all control there as well.

This gave the Republicans the golden opportunity to strike (as one would say) when the iron is hot. This was their opportunity to make their loyal Christian voting base happy campers by doing exactly what they are doing right now, making legal abortion services, if not extremely difficult, almost impossible to get.

At the same time, this has also given the Republicans the opportunity to make their extremely rich donors happy, the corporations, by systematically destroying the power of labor unions as occurred in Wisconsin and in other states.
+2 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:48
Right on!
+21 # LiberalRN 2013-07-24 01:43
I'm inclined to believe that, for most GOP politicians, the abortion debate is a very convenient smokescreen. It's a highly emotional issue as stated above, and it rallies an important part of "the Base" - and behind the screen, while the public debate on reproductive rights rages on, the corporatizing of our democratic process, transfer of wealth upward to the wealthy, and wholesale gutting of the social contract continue unabated. Pay no attention to the little man in the corner.
+1 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:49
+20 # Dion Giles 2013-07-24 06:05
Two made-up terms have been inserted into language in order to deligitimise the right of women to control what happens to their own bodies - "pro-abortion" and "pro-life".

Exercising women's choice is not pro-abortion. Women who choose abortion don't do so lightly. It's a distressing procedure both physically and emotionally. mra500 spelled out the reasons most women choosing abortion do so. The terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" should be challenged every time they are uttered.

"Pro-life" is if anything even more deceitful, especially coming from those who accept war. What right do these monsters have to call the oppression of women "pro-life"?

Describing debate over the claimed right to dictate a women's decisions about her body as pro-abortion vs pro-life is a snare to frame the question in a manner dictated by religion, not respect for other human beings. It should be rigorously treated as so.

Proper terms based on respect or contempt for women are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice".
+8 # M. de la Souche 2013-07-24 10:57
Spot on. Thank you.
And thank you to mra500 for your post above.
+16 # gilletlb 2013-07-24 06:27
If total reproduction health care and education were free and easily available in this country we'd have a much healthier population and even fewer abortions. Why can't these idiots figues this out? Maybe they already have and just want power over women, the environment, and to return us to a totally slave society thus finally winning the civil war!
+20 # Moefwn 2013-07-24 07:39
Try as I might, after all these years of thought and study, I seem unable to regard all this sturm und drang over women's reproductive rights as anything but a concerted attempt by one backward facet of the population - fronted by right wing zealots, but not restricted to them - to maintain a large pool of women in this country whose only real option is to act as servants and breeders for them. Whether they're afraid of female sexuality or not has no bearing - in fact I think that's an excuse, just as religion is. What this part of the population really wants is a large subjugated population who can legally be used as slaves, and women fit the bill.
+4 # mra500 2013-07-24 23:51
Moefwn - You said it! Yes. And I think it goes even further. They also want a large population to keep us workers competing with one another so they can keep wages low - they want a large population so they have many soldiers and police to fight their wars and defend their economic interests - and yes they want many women readily available for service and sex.
-3 # JackB 2013-07-27 13:23
Your post is the result of years of thought & study??? I wouldn't be too anxious to brag about that if I were you.

This pool of female servants & breeders - where will those zealots keep them? A big corral in Arizona?? What if they don't go quietly? What will the zealots do?

Afraid of female sexuality?? I thought female sexuality is what started the whole abortion issue. Won't be many abortions if men are afraid of women's sexuality.

If it is the right-wing zealots who are anti-abortion does that mean everyone else is for it? All the left-wing zealots chanting "Kill the little SOBs"?

As a true liberal you see no problem with being clueless yet believing you know everything. "What this part of the population wants...". Yeah, right.
-2 # MylesJ 2013-07-24 11:51
Who are all these people who are "profoundly uncomfortable" with sex. If that were true where did all these other people come from, Mars????
+10 # jwb110 2013-07-24 12:34
The GOP and the Christian Right should receive the
"Barefoot and Pregnant Award".
+8 # Cailleach 2013-07-24 17:12
Also, when they withhold food and medical care for the newborn, they should receive an award for every baby that dies from the neglect they caused.
+1 # Cassandra2013 2013-07-25 13:51
Quoting Cailleach:
Also, when they withhold food and medical care for the newborn, they should receive an award for every baby that dies from the neglect they caused.

Not an award, at the very least a hefty fine, and jail time.
+6 # spenel334 2013-07-24 21:22
Chief Justice Roberts made the statement, either before or toward the beginning of his tenure at the Supreme Court that the way to do away with abortion was to gut it, little by little, with one restriction after another, until it rarely happens (not his words, but same meaning). And he has had plenty fellow ultraconservati ves to help him carry out his agenda.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.