October 13, 2004
Guess who lost the election after saying, "I am not going to spend any federal money on abortions."
by Liza Sabater
If you guessed George W. Bush, you are correct.
For the undecided out there, I believe that any ammendments to the constitution, especially those involving privacy and first ammendment rights, are what going to swing the election in favor of Kerry.
As Joanie, a staunch Republican and Protest Warrior, writes at Da Goddess: Town Hall Debate:
Abortion: This is where I piss off the very hard Right. Listen, what's decided between me and my doctor is MY business. I don't want Bush, Kerry, or anyone else say what I can or cannot have done. Enacting any law that prohibits a procedure is a hairbreadth away from enacting a law that mandates it must be done.
Joanie is not undecided : She is without a doubt voting for Bush. But she has given Democrats the keys to the White House by spelling out what no one else has wanted to throughout this campaign : That for women, abortion will always be the #1 political issue and that it has to be address strongly, clearly and without any doubt.
What is my stand on abortion? Quite simple : Life starts when there is a viable fetus. Anybody with a passing grade in Biology 101 knows that. The issue is not when does life start. The issue around reproductive rights (and consequently abortion) is :
Who gets to say when an embryo or a fetus becomes a baby, "the law" or "the mother"?
The answer is very simple for me :
A fetus is a baby when I decide to be its mother
Nobody wants to admit their lives are the product of a woman's decision to give them life. Most men do not even fathom the possibility that therein lies the power of woman : That they were given a shot at life not by an abstract or metaphorical higher power but by their very real and concrete mothers.
John F. Kerry needs to pull a fuller and stroger Cuomo on the issue of abortion. The battle over women's wombs is a reflection of the battle over who gets to control the constitution. "Dred Scott" not only will hit the abortion issue, but it will have gigantic ripple effects on gay rights, privacy rights, the selection of US Supreme Court Justices and, in the end, how the constitution will be interpreted and laws will be enacted for the next 20-30 years.
There is nothing to be undecided over who gets to control the US constitution and, in the end, how democracy will be enacted.
Relevant Links :
Daily Kos :: Dred Scott, Explained: It's About Abortion
When Bush made reference to "Dred Scott" he was assuring his anti-choice constituents that he would indeed only appoint Supreme Court justices who would remove abortion rights.
Orcinus | Strict construction
"Strict constructionists" are not in favor of merely returning the nation to that mythical Golden Age of postwar America so beloved of conservatives when men were men, women were housewives, and Negroes knew their place. No, their brand of law actually hearkens back to an era in American history when civil rights and basic social equality were held permanently in abeyance by a court system whose first and last loyalties were to an elite ruling class of wealthy robber barons.
Suburban Guerrilla | THE REST OF THE STORY
Suppose that before this legislator comes a bill that gives some continuing authorization for abortion but in addition provides a range of life-enhancing services for pregnant women: for example, prenatal, maternal, and postnatal care, as well as counseling for pregnant teens and young married parents. The legislator, says Himes, might determine that the potential aid for mothers, babies, and families in this piece of legislation will in fact deter abortion in the long run by making it a less attractive option. He or she would be on solid moral grounds if voting to pass the bill, says Himes.
Posted by Liza Sabater in 2004 Elections, Activism, Civil Rights, Feminism, Health, Law, Life, Motherhood, Parenting, Politics, Privacy, Religion, Reproductive Rights, Sexual Politics
Permalink |
Comments (5)
| TrackBack (1) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2270
The following blogs make reference to this post :
» I Should Be Packing, And That's Not What I Meant! from Da Goddess
I should be packing for my trip right now. I should also be making a handful of calls. In due... [More...]
Found inOctober 13, 2004 03:57 PM
Say it loud, say it proud!
I don't think I handed the keys to anyone with my statement. I most decidedly did not hand the keys to the Democratic party. They want to be more involved in my healthcare and mylife...and I don't believe they should be. What's decided between me and my doctor is between us, no one else. No one. And that's not just regarding abortion.
As a nurse, I do not want to see Kerry's plan for healthcare come to fruition. It won't work. If the government becomes the overseer for us in this area, they will have even MORE say in what is allowed or disallowed. You can't think of this in terms of 4 years. You need to look at what can happen down the line if Kerry's plan put into use. This would be devastating for everyone in the long run. You can't implement something like this in a short time. And you can't just yank it if it turns out not to work the way you want it to. Look at Welfare!
2
Comment by: Da Goddess at October 13, 2004 01:46 PM
And just to be clear, abortion is not THE number one political issue...I just happened to address that this time around. THE number one issue should be national security and our liberty. Without those in place, nothing else matters. Doesn't matter who's in office, if you're not alive and free, domestic policy won't mean squat.
3
Comment by: A Hermit at October 13, 2004 02:18 PM
In reply to "Da Goddess"; Ya know, it amazes many of us here in the Great White North to hear Americans still raising the same fears of "socialized" medicine that we were arguing about in this country forty years ago.
Just try and suggest taking publicly funded Medicare away from Canadians today! It may not be perfect, but a return to a privatized system is roundly denounced as "Americanized" health care. Most undesirable...and not just for consumers, but for employers who understand the competitive edge they get from not having to deal with a host of overpriced private insurance shysters.
As for abortion, I thought Kerry's answer in the debate was excellent; not a knee jerk, black/white response like Bush's, but a heartfelt expression of the tension between his own personal beliefs and the requirements of constitutional protection of women's rights and women's health.
4
Comment by: Joni at October 13, 2004 10:32 PM
Great post. You shouted out what others only dared think. MEN are always trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
@Joan -- you don't want the government running the healthcare system. It already is! HB4 passsed with flying colors here in Texas, which is known for its runaway juries, but that's what the appellate system is for. Insurance companies are out of control. They hide behind COBRA laws to skirt issues of negligence when, in my opinion, if they and their corporate officers are going to make MEDICAL decisions involving someone's life, and then something goes horribly wrong as a result, by God they ought to be held accountable just as if they'd personally stood over me and weilded a scalpel.
5
Comment by: Jared MacDonald at February 13, 2005 12:32 AM
Yeah, well guess what you fucking douche... Kerry lost the election because he was pro-choice!
1
Comment by: Da Goddess at October 13, 2004 01:43 PM