Akin’s anti-Choice bills were co-sponsored by…Paul Ryan.

Via on Aug 22, 2012

The Coat Hanger becomes the symbol of the moment.

It’s almost like the once-Grand Ol’Party is trying to lose the support of moderates and independents.

The official Republican party position is ‘no exceptions for rape’ [or incest], and Romney/Ryan officially represent that position.

Update: “NO CHOICE
More Than 40 Republican Candidates Oppose Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Incest.”

Update: Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): “The official republican party position is ‘no exceptions for rape’, and Romney/Ryan should be held accountable for that position.

Updates: “Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and Redefining Rape — The Missouri congressman pushed a bill—along with the GOP vice-presidential candidate—to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions for rape victims.”

“Ryan Refuses To Say Abortions Should Be Available To Women Who Are Raped.”

“The Akin and the damage done: His Anti-Abortion Bills were Co-sponsored by Paul Ryan.”

~

“The coathanger is a political statement. It’s cutesy, but it’s a political statement.

If pro-life politicians have their way, we’re going to see a regression to older, more unsafe forms of abortion. You can’t keep it safe and neat when you’re not funded, much less not legal. Their laws won’t stop abortion, it would only make it more dangerous and cause the deaths of many women who go for an abortion regardless.

That’s not very pro-life of them, at all.”

GOP’s official Platform announced: No Exceptions in case of Rape.

the GOP announced that there will be no rape exception (indeed no exceptions at all) in their new national platform of anti-choice politics…People SHOULD BE shocked and horrified and disturbed and nauseous over the idea of returning to a time in America when women were forced to this absolute cruelest of medical procedures (abortion via coat hanger). People should be pissed, and notice I don’t say “women should be pissed” – PEOPLE. HUMAN BEINGS. Those of us who are breathing should be pissed that one of our own – millions of our own, half of our population – will be put in danger because of positively medieval thinking on behalf of the most removed-from-reality politicians of the GOP.”

Bonus:

YouTube Preview Image

About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now elephantjournal.com & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. elephantjournal.com | facebook.com/elephantjournal | twitter.com/elephantjournal | facebook.com/waylonhlewis | twitter.com/waylonlewis | Google+ For more: publisherelephantjournalcom

1,330 views

29 Responses to “Akin’s anti-Choice bills were co-sponsored by…Paul Ryan.”

  1. elephantjournal says:

    Valli Rose Price All about control!!! Women wake up and demand your rights! Get out and vote for your rights! Obama/Biden. 2012
    15 minutes ago via mobile · Like · 1
    Martha Koper Conway Why does the baby in the womb not have any rights?
    13 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
    elephantjournal.com Martha, thanks for your respectful point. I would personally say that all life has rights: but that the GOP seems to be passionate about the rights of life up until birth—and not including time in the hospital. Where is the GOP's "Christ-like" compassion for the poor, for our soldiers, sent again and again into battle without adequate healthcare when they return? Where is our concern for the raped mother (and her family)? Where is our concern for children subjected to incest? Where is our concern for the banning of guns clearly not appropriate for hunting, or anything other than crime or warfare?

    Our modern GOP's priorities seem so inconsistent as to be insincere.

  2. Mark Ledbetter says:

    I really hate to say the abortion amendment is unimportant. But it actually is. Aside from the fact that it’ll never pass, there are three much bigger issues that are pretty much ignored while we boil our blood over the relatively small issues. Those are:

    1. War and the military-industrial-congressional complex.
    2. Millions incarcerated for victimless crimes.
    3. Looming financial collapse from ballooning government debt.

    Any difference between Obama and Romney on these three issues is minor. You can only find meaningful differences by going to less important issues like abortion. Or maybe you want to vote for someone who is culturally and intellectually more like you; O and R differ there, too. But if you are concerned about issues of major importance, the Reps and Dems offer us no choice. If you want to vote for peace, freedom, and a future for our children, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is the only choice.

    I know Y.H. has said several times on Ele threads that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney. And that’s worth considering. But also consider this… Both Reps and Dems have determined that there are only 5 or 6 states in play this time around, all other states are firmly locked in for O or R. So, unless you live in one of those 5 or 6, a vote for either Obama or Romney is a wasted vote and a wasted chance. Johnson isn’t going to win any states but a vote for Johnson is an important symbolic statement for Peace and Freedom. A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for war.

    • DaveTelf says:

      I don't know anything about Gary Johnson (yet), but that is a tremendously phrased comment Mr. Ledbetter. I agree whole-heartedly with your 3 points and the fact that "a vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for war."

      Here's an interesting summary: http://thewhitehatsreport.com/wordpress/

      I'm going to Google Gary Johnson now.

      • Mark Ledbetter says:

        Hey Dave, I had to google him, too. In fact, it was right here on Ele about a week ago when one of the illustrious Ele contributors introduced me to Gary Johson. G.J. ia small government, anti-shooting war, anti-drug war former guv of New Mexico. And he's on the ballot in all 50 states. Anyone who wants to make a meaningful though symbolic vote for peace rather than a wasted vote for war can do it. In any state.

      • YogaForLiberty says:

        That's an interesting theory. Sounds a little too much like Benjamin Fulford to me though.

        • DaveTelf says:

          Not a fan of Fulford?

          He, Wilcock and the White Hats — among other more sporadic sources — have been publishing independent reports for quite some time now that, in my experience, provide valuable context when observing world geo-political events.

    • YogaForLiberty says:

      Right on. People keep saying I'd vote 3rd party if they'd have a chance. Well, they'll never have a chance if you don't vote for them. You vote on principle, not on the candidate most likely to win closest to your principle. That's why in the yoga sutras the yamas come first. We have to stick to our principles.

    • elephantjournal says:

      I don't think that gives due credit to Obama and war, or Gitmo. Let's remember he isn't the King, he's the lader of one of three branches, with the corporate-backed media the fourth estate and money in politics (thanks, Citizens United) now as powerful player as votes.

      But yes, if you're not in a swing state, sure. I just don't want to see a repeat of 2000's "lesser of two evils" logic.

      • YogaForLiberty says:

        Then you'd have to admit the same argument for the Bush years.

        I think voting Johnson would hurt Romney more. I just don't get why people think that after 00 and 04 elections, there's still fair elections. Obama had clear majority in 08, but in a close election beware of electronic voting machines. Ever seen the doc Hacking Democracy. Nothing has been fixed. There's no major watch the vote movement. The president will be decided by the corporate-backed media and money in politics. They'll pick whoever they perceive will benefit them most. In this case, it's Harvard CFR elite team A vs. Harvard CFR elite team B. Nothing will change. Abortion will stay legal as it has for the past 20+ years.

  3. arthur says:

    the gop is running for 2016. obama "won" a 2nd term by supporting the system as it is. so naturally no decent republican is going to subject themselves to a loss, and why ryan was selected, and why the obama camp has been half assed in their campaign.
    jill stein http://www.jillstein.org/ is running on the green party ticket, but is only on the ballot in 30 states so far. we prefer her to Johnson, but we'd vote for him if it looked like he had a chance.

  4. YogaForLiberty says:

    We had 8 years of Bush, and I'm pretty sure they didn't touch abortion. You guys are radicals. You all think If the GOP wins, they're bringing back slavery and banning abortion. Grow up. Obama used to campaign on Ideas on uniting people. Now after 4 years of the true Obama, dirty attacks is only way he can win.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Riiiight…moderate liberals are the radicals.

      President Bush did accomplish a lot, if not banning abortion: he tried to privatize social security, got us Supreme Court justices who'll be with us for decades and who've already got us Citizens United (therefore SuperPacs), Patriot Act…you know the list, I'm sure, even through your colored lens.

      How did "don't vote for the lesser two evils work out last time," Nader fans?

      • YogaForLiberty says:

        Hmm, hypocrisy much. When it comes to bush appointee Roberts, Citizens united bad, Obamacare good. If your under 35, you're never going to see social security. Boy are you in for a surprise when the fed is forced to raise interest rates.

        How has Obama worked out for Patriot Act? I'm sure he'll make it all better in his second term. Did he close Guantanamo? Isn't ACLU suing obama administration?

        You don't get to call yourself a moderate liberal when you post a picture about the GOPs platform with a COAT HANGER! It's not cutesy, it's disgusting. You are a radical, utilizing they same fear tactics to promote pro-choice as pro-lifers use in their propaganda.

        • elephantjournal says:

          You ask a lot of questions, and if you did your research, you'd have more answers. On Gitmo, it was Obama's first act—to try and close it. Again, we're a two-party, three-five branch system (including media, and, now, SuperPacs/money in politics). I have a question for you: how many times has the GOP attached keep-Gitmo-open riders to unrelated bills over the last three years?

          A hanger sure is disgusting, and I hope it doesn't need to ever be used in any civilized country, again. We're in agreement on that.

          • YogaForLiberty says:

            On Gitmo, the truth is that Obama really doesn't take a hit by keeping it open. So what pressure does he have to make closing it a priority?

            The Obama GITMO myth http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_m
            Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is.

            A Spiteful New Policy at Guantánamo Bay http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/a-spite
            The Obama administration’s latest overuse of executive authority at Guantánamo Bay is a decision not to let lawyers visit clients in detention under terms that have been in place since 2004. Because these meetings pose little risk and would send a message about America’s adherence to the rule of law, the administration looks as if it is imperiously punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.

            The coat hanger thing is also a myth. It's a symbol for unsafe abortion, but the statistics don't justify it being used as such.

  5. It's totally classic that on a post about what men still see as "woman's issue" (and it's not, it's a HUMAN issue), that the talk quickly turns to a bunch of guys nattering on about The Fed, interest rates, Benjamin Fulford and Gitmo.

    I find this totally offensive.

    While these are GREAT topics, it would be really nice to see a group of men discussing the issue at hand, and why this whole situation re: abortion rights is TOTALLY FUCKED UP. And for the person who thinks this just a 'tactic' that 'won't ever pass' – do some reading. The legislation limiting women's choices in the context of their bodies has ALREADY been incredibly curtailed over the past years.

    THIS is the issue here and it is, honestly, more important than all of the above political ideas – because it affects the poorest, least enfranchised, least-represented members of our society. It takes their ability to decide something fundamental about their lives out the window.

    But I guess you just don't care that much if it's not your body, your time, your life that gets sucked down the tubes when you have to carry and birth a kid, whether you are physically or mentally ready and able, or want to care for a kid. Because even Liberal men think "Doesn't every woman want to be a mother?" (NO) and "Motherhood is so natural, part of the order of things," and other such crap. Since you get to choose to be a father or not – even if you have a child – you will never get this issue. And you don't need to – just listen to the women and respect their decisions. This is just another example of men talking over women.

    Goddam am I SICK of that shit.

    • YogaForLiberty says:

      So men need to STFU about a HUMAN issue? What about all the pro-life women? Should we respect their decisions? Men talking over women? Well speak up!

      • elephantjournal says:

        We're all pro-life. No one, as is said in comments here, is pro-abortion. Most women see that it's a complicated situation—but that the living, adult mother must be cared for first. Not to have an exception for rape or incest is unreal.

  6. bobcat says:

    No woman wants to abort period. A true pro-lifer should never put a pressure on women who are in the position to choose the horrible option. if you think women just love to have abortion you need some real loving from women (and men) in your life. Give us a break. Do what you want with your body and let me and my fellow sisters do what we need to.

    And why the funk did they not come up with the morning before pills for men? Notice how all the birth control drugs are for women? I have taken the morning after pill. It was horrible for my body and I would never do it again. Men get to wear thin layer of plastic with no side effects. That's it. Oppression of women is a norm. It's about time some crazy old fool exposes himself and his paternal club. They and their oppressed women are the fake pro-lifers. Similar to how the SuperPACs call themselves Citizens United. What morons.

  7. Susi says:

    Damn….who would have thought so many elected officials are would be so eager to take women’s rights away? Besides, aren’t these the guys who want to take food stamps away from already-born children? And now they think we need more unwanted people?? Very strange stance. On a more serious note, I had a baby in 1971 who died specifically BECAUSE abortion was illegal in my state at that time. It makes me crazy/angry/sad to think that this is a possibility again.

  8. bobcat says:

    However ineffective Obama has been, call me old fashion, but I am proud to have him as my president. He is not a corporate/billionaire whore like so many before him and those running against him.
    http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159768245/jane-maye

  9. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Starre (and Bobcat and Susi?), yes the abortion issue is extremely important. But even "extremely" is not enough to make it close to the "big three" above.

    War is just simply the worst thing outside of death camps that governments do to people. Unjust jailing (what we're doing to millions of mostly poor minority men) is better than war but not by a whole lot, and might actually be worse to those directly affected. Out-of-control spending is finally coming to a head, as it must. You can't thumb your nose at reality forever. Worse case scenario, and not all that unlikely, is financial collapse, which will make everything "good" the government does impossible to pay for. Best case scenario is that we are saddling future generations with mountains of debt. They will have to pay us for our desire to have it all, while they get nothing from soc sec, medicaid, and most of what they have been promised. That's simple financial reality that has nothing to do with party affiliation. Political parties cannot rewrite physical laws, as southern Europe is finding out right now.

    Abortion is important. Gay marriage rights are important. Most of the "designated issues" are important. But they pale in importance compared to the big three. Yet neither party talks about them. The American Empire, American Gulag, and astronomical debt levels are hardly issues for either the Dems or Reps. At best, they only quibble about the details.

    • Signe says:

      Mr. Ledbetter, your subjective Big 3 is still off topic.

      • Mark Leddbetter says:

        Yeah, well, I get off topic somestimes! Happens when you have too many years under your belt, ya know.

      • DaveTelf says:

        Off-topic, okay, but it's all connected, is it not?

        We are indeed discussing human issues here. Am I to understand that we must choose which is more important: sending men on drugs to jail or war, and back-alley abortions? How can that be? Where on the ballot is the box for Neither/Nor?

        It's a shame that a life decision so intimate can be made into such a monstrous lever of political power; abortion does not seem, to me, to be a very public issue.

        However, here we are. The issue is before us, and it takes some wrangling to wrestle loose the influence of those who would seek to suppress human free will. I am sincerely sorry (Starre, Bobcat, Signe et al) if the politicalization (not a word) of this conversation in any way "talks over" you. That is not the intent.

        As we all well know, many men have been primarily responsible for imposing such fiascos upon women, and as such, some men attempt to redeem all the rest by charging into battle on behalf of what we can best guess is better for everyone.

        So, Starre, I was especially struck by the contradiction between your message and your tone. You emphatically state that, "it's a HUMAN issue" but then at the end we need to butt out and just "listen to the women," which is not actually a contradiction, except that it feels like you're getting upset at people who are pushing in your same direction, yelling about errors in their footwork or some such thing.

        Please, by all means, take the lead, provide guidance. I can't wait for matriarchy to come back into style; I grew up in my Momma's house and I am a happy boy. But I me personally am more encouraged by a pat on the back than a kick in the butt.

        The point is, these are messy issues, so it's especially crucial to talk it out like this. How else will we find out how we really feel? Human means we're on the same team. So we want everyone to start acting that way.

  10. bobcat says:

    Thanks Dave for showing the emotional maturity many including myself often lacked in discussions personal or public. My husband has pointed out the same issue with men being dealt the hard hand of being in the frontline. I think we are all agreeing that nobody is pro-abortion. I am just not anti-abortion. And I am with you on Mark's "big three". Though we perhaps disagree on who might best lead us out of the predicaments. I am not going to waste my vote on the third party candidate just to make a statement. I am voting for Obama becausehis respect him as a person of high integrity. I don't want to go back to a country viewed by all other countries as a bulldog or a world cop. And I definitely don't want a president who dictates women.

    Having said that I am curious how it would turn out with Romney leading the country. It could just be the tipping point we need in order to go forward. It has to get worse before it gets better as they say.

  11. seaglass17 says:

    Why do people continually use the ridiculous phrase "rape or incest"? Incest is almost exclusively RAPE. For consenting adults who are related who willingly and knowingly interact, well I just don't know what to say about that…but to separate incest from rape is beyond absurd.

  12. [...] A few days ago, Waylon Lewis startled my feminism right out of the closet. [...]

  13. [...] PS: for all those offended by these lyrics, click here and get upset about this instead—it really matters. [...]

Leave a Reply