The Republican Party Platform was debated on this week, and it breaks down like this: jobs jobs jobs abortion and gays. Basically, the Republican party has nailed down social conservatism from 1950, and plans to fuck all of us over with it. Thanks, guys!
via {The Advocate}
The Log Cabin Republicans are pissed about this sanctity of marriage business. In a press release from their website, Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said:
The obsessive exclusion of gay couples, including military families, from the rights and responsibilities of marriage, combined with bizarre rhetoric about ‘hate campaigns’ and ‘the homosexual rights agenda’ are clear signs of desperation among social conservatives who know that public opinion is rapidly turning in favor of equality.
The Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry — you may remember that group from a month or so ago — also tried to persuade the Republican platform committee to stop opposing marriage equality in their official platform, but I suppose you can guess how well that worked.
Now, remember that the Log Cabin Republicans did not endorse Romney — that was GOProud. The Log Cabin Republicans were actually very influential in getting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed and actually filed the court case Log Cabin Republicans vs. The United States. They are fiscally conservative, and hope to influence the Republican party “by promoting the core values of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense while advocating for the freedom and equality of gay and lesbian Americans.”
“I guess this is okay as long as they don’t get married or have abortions.”
via {The Next Family}
In the Log Cabin Republicans press release, Cooper goes on to say that this platform may be the last time the GOP includes the opinions of the Family Research Council about marriage, and does discuss the fact that platforms “rarely influence policy.” They commend the Republican party for taking out any reference to bringing back “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and are happy to see that LGBT immigrants seeking asylum from countries such as Iran are not referred to negatively in the document. They are also confident that there will never be amendment to the constitution upholding the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.
Yeah, well, I’m glad one of us believes in humanity, because I’m not convinced the Republican platform is going to bow to the pressure of minorities any time soon. Really, 0% of black voters are for Romney. That’s a big red flag, don’t you think? The Republican Party has consistently alienated minorities and the middle class with their “Fuck you, I’ve got mine” mentality and are confident in getting away with murder.
Oh, speaking of murder, the platform also includes a blanket abortion ban, or “human life amendment.” The platform reads:
Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
There are no exceptions for cases of incest or rape. Remind you of anyone? The platform also includes positive reference to states with those disgusting and horrifying ultrasound bills and mandatory waiting periods. However, the human life amendment has been included in one way or another in the Republican platform for 32 years, even after John McCain pushed hard in 2000 to get cases of incest and rape removed from the ban.
Founding Father facepalm
Really, I am 200% sure that abortion is what the founding fathers were talking about in the Fourteenth Amendment, which, might I remind you, includes,“No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and also a few words about citizenship and due process. That does not say, “A fertilized egg is a person.” Would everyone please stop trying to make it sound like it does?
When is the Republican party going to realize that they are way too far gone in terms of social conservatism? It was funny in the beginning, right? It was funny to watch Republican presidential candidates mess up words and backtrack and have zero clue what they were talking about. It’s not funny anymore, because this is reality, and there’s an election approaching. This isn’t even fiscally responsible, because they’re wasting so much time and money on getting unjust laws passed, like Personhood and Sanctity of Marriage laws.
The Log Cabin Republicans are on the right track, but they remain too idealistic in regards to the Republican platform. It seems as though they are saying, “This is a step in the right direction” and keeping their fingers crossed for the future. But there’s no evidence that the future will hold any kind of growth or evolution from the Republican party. You can send letters and stand in front of pulpits all you want, but it’s hard to convince people backing their claims on the Bible with no regard to common sense, the separation of church and state, or actual fiscal responsibility.
I read somewhere that the GOP wants to make government so tiny it can fit inside a woman’s uterus. Maybe they also plan to insert their tiny government inside of my wedding ring. But even the Republican gays are putting their foot down — good luck with that one, GOP.
The entire Republican party is so terrifying to me, almost as terrifying as the folks who take them seriously and really do believe that a legitimately small government can be up in women’s genitals.
Also, Log Cabin Republicans confuse me. I understand intellectually that some folks really are into the idea of fiscal conservative-ness but believing in it and being willing to lobby for it at the expense of being considered an equal citizen just does not compute for me. Also, finger-crossing as a method of policy change does not seem to be a great idea either.
Basically: let’s all move to… somewhere else?
“This isn’t even fiscally responsible, because they’re wasting so much time and money on getting unjust laws passed, like Personhood and Sanctity of Marriage laws.”
Preach. This is one thing my dad and I agree on. My parents are both very conservative but agree that all this hate is not only a waste of time and harmful, but a gigantic waste of money that could go elsewhere. Granted that elsewhere may not be a place I agree on, it’s at least hopeful to see my parents and their upper-middle class friends leaning in this direction. It’s like, “equality okay fine have it, let’s just get on with business.” Kind of a poor attitude still, but at least a little progress.
I’ve had several friends and family members tell me that ideally, they like the democratic party platform as far as human rights go, but that the economy is all fucked up so they wanna vote for Romney. Which leads me to believe that Fox News is frighteningly good at doing its job brainwashing decent Americans. What people don’t understand is a. the economy has gotten BETTER under Obama, and b. even if the economy massively improves under Romney (ya know, if the trickle down effect MAGICALLY trickles down!), what fun would it be to have a thriving economy and a decent paycheck if I don’t have basic human rights to enjoy them with??
“what fun would it be to have a thriving economy and a decent paycheck if I don’t have basic human rights to enjoy them with??”
BRAVO Ashley!
Here’s some more truth (no FauxNews) about who creates jobs (hint: it ain’t big business):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
Cheers from Australia! :)
The link you referenced for the “disgusting and horrifying ultrasound bills and mandatory waiting periods.” Was a little mis-leading. I feel like you should have actually referenced the “horrifying” bills. I actually think a little regulation on abortions can be a good thing. I think it is a good idea to have people get an ultrasound before getting their abortion. There is nothing inhumane about it! If you are chosing to abort your fetus then you already know that it could develop into a human life and you should be prepared to LOOK AT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of your choices. I feel like it is the mature thing to do is look at your own ultrasound.
This is experience – I had an abortion in 2007, and although at the time I had just reasons, I will admit that sometimes I wish I had made a different choice. But that can be said for any choice you make in life. I looked at my ultrasound. I am glad I did. It gave a sense of reality to what I was going through. The process after was depressing and rough, but I feel like in those last moments before you go through with your procedure you have one last chance to change your mind or one last chance to affirm that you are making the best decision possible.
I’m 100% pro-choice. But I really do appreciate that I had to have an ultrasound and had the choice to look at my ultrasound if I wanted (which I didn’t have to look at it and I’m sure most states don’t MAKE you look at the pictures, it’s just to verify gestational age from what I understand.)
I completely support your choice to look at the ultrasound, but I don’t believe every woman should be forced. I don’t believe it is your right to shame abortion-seeking women by telling them to look at the physical evidence.
I would never tryto say abortion is a casual procedure, as I am sure you know very well. Please understand that ultrasound laws do not make exceptions for rape victims, women whose lives are in danger, eptopic pregnancies, or women who are choosing to have abortions because of severe fetal deformities.
That’s why I believe they are inhumane. It isn’t about being a mature adult or having one last chance to change your mind. It is about shaming women who have chosen to have a legal medical procedure.
You have very valid points, and I guess I should have read this article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html
before commenting because the virginia law seems to be the reason why the ultrasound debate got vamped up and this is what they tried to pass:
“Summary as introduced:
Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman’s medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed.”
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB484
and it looks like it was put on hold anyway.
On the other hand, what’s not getting attention is that 21 states have similar laws in effect already and they have been in effect since the 1990’s…
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf
All of these states have the option to NOT LOOK at your pictures.
I think what more people need to understand is that abortion is a medical procedure and it helps the physician determine gestational age and help you decide which method of abortion would be best for you. (Chemical vs surgical…etc)
Even in the case of rape you need to decide if you want to take a pill or if you want them to scrape out your insides… Without an ultrasound this can – but not necesarilly will – make it easier to make these decisions. How else will they know exactly how far along you are? It is much easier to take pills if the fetus is, say, 5 weeks, and I think there is no other option but to have a surgical procedure if the fetus is too old.
I understand that there is rhetoric about “shaming” women… but I think when it comes down to it, ultrasound is more than that. It can be, when properly done, a very effective way of helping the physician determine the appropriate abortion method even if experts believe it is not medically necessary in the first tri-mester.
But look at it from another perspective: If you were raped 5 weeks ago and found out you were pregnant, went in and the doctor told you without a doubt that the fetus was actually 10 weeks old, would that change your mind?
I think the problem here is the insensitivity in which the bills have been presented. Both by the politicians, and the media itself, which seems to have made it into a debate on whether or not this infringes on a technical rape and shames women as a “veiled attempt” to personify a fetus (even though studies show that even when the woman looks at the ultrasound they have the abortion anyway…).
For the women who do believe that this infringes on a technical rape and shames women, I can only hope that there is change for this.
ANYWAY! Enough of my rant… I hope this clarifies my points a little better.
Typos!! sorry…
[that abortion is a medical procedure and it helps the physician determine gestational age and help you decide which method of abortion would be best for you]
should be
“that abortion is a medical procedure and ultrasound helps the physician…”
and
[Without an ultrasound this can – but not necesarilly will]
should be: “With an ultrasound…”
apologies