 by Sandra Fluke |
COMMENTARY
Since Rep. Paul Ryan was chosen as Mitt Romney’s running mate, I’ve sent out tweets noting that by picking Ryan, Romney has doubled down on his dangerous stance on women’s health. I included links to articles describing Ryan’s abysmal record on the issue.
This being Twitter, supporters of Romney and Ryan responded. But rather than defend Ryan’s record, they instead accusing me of making it up. This reaction of disbelief continued even after the spread of an internet meme and campaign trail pranks began drawing attention to Ryan’s positions.
Maybe that’s not surprising: Ryan’s record on women’s issues is so far outside the mainstream that many find it unbelievable. Here are just a few of the anti-women votes Ryan has cast:
• Ryan voted for a bill referred to as the “Let Women Die Bill” because it proposed to allow hospitals to refuse a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life was in immediate danger. Currently, a federally funded hospital is required to provide at least enough care for a patient to be stabilized so that she doesn’t die and can be transferred to another hospital. The bill Ryan voted for meant that hospitals wouldn’t even have had to do that.
• Ryan co-sponsored a federal personhood bill. That bill declared a fertilized egg that hasn’t even resulted in a pregnancy to be the equivalent of a living person, with all of the rights of federal law. As a result, aspects of in vitro fertilization procedures and some forms of contraception would be criminalized, as would operations to save a woman’s life in the case of dangerous ectopic pregnancies that cannot be carried to term.
• Ryan repeatedly over several years voted against bills to ensure women equal pay for equal work, even voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
• Ryan voted to cut off Title X family planning programs that ensure impoverished and low-wage women affordable access to contraception as well as mammograms and cancer-screenings.
• Ryan’s budget attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and a broad range of social services (including child care, Head Start, job training, Pell Grants, housing and energy assistance) would disproportionately harm women’s economic wellbeing. That’s because the majority of beneficiaries of these programs are women, due to their longer life spans and greater likelihood of being impoverished.
• Ryan repeatedly voted over several years to end all funding for Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services. Like Susan G. Komen’s defunding, voting to cut off funding of Planned Parenthood would rob women of access to breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, and the other life-saving services Planned Parenthood provides. By law, federal funding of Planned Parenthood already excludes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger.
• Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would deny many rape victims on Medicaid access to abortion. That bill proposed to cut off access through federally-funded programs for victims who were drugged or threatened, some victims of incest, and victims of statutory rape.
• Ryan voted repeatedly to prevent our female military service-members from using their own private money to pay for abortion at a military hospital. He also voted for legislation to allow bans on abortion coverage in the new state health-insurance exchanges, even for women paying with their own money.
If you find all of that unbelievable -- and dangerous -- you’re not alone. But that’s the problem. If voters assume no one could be that bad, and don’t learn the truth about Ryan’s record, Romney/Ryan will have the opportunity to put their vision for women’s health and economic security into action. That’s why we have to spread the word. By November, Ryan’s record shouldn’t be unbelieved, or unknown.
Sandra Fluke graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. She has endorsed and campaigned for President Obama.
Leave a Comment:
Sandra, what people also need to know is that Romney legalized abortion, gay marriage, mandated that religious institutions provide the morning after pill to rape victims and funded Stericycle that disposes of fetuses chemically through Bain! He did this all while he was governor. The reason they need to know it is because of the flip flopping and for the Christian voter's knowledge. All of this can be found in McCain's 200 page opposition document on Romney! Spread the word!
Its seems like legalizing abortion would have been profitable for Stericycle at that time! Does the record show Massachusetts as a key Stericycle client?
Your first bullet point is a half story. source please? "Unbelievable"?? He is acting on basic conservative values. What's unbelievable about that? And Good Lord...this entire thing doesn't cite a single source.
What is so conservative about letting people die when it can be prevented? Also you see this is not breitbart.com you may feel free to challenge any and all of Fluke's statements and you will find she is correct, but excellent try at the distraction tactic of claiming something you know to be true as somehow not true.
Paul Ryan's story "provided Ryan with Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday" - YET for some reason Ryan feels that others do not deserve the same government break that he got, who knew?
A Single source, What would you call his voting record? BailofRights you must stop getting your talking points and sources of information from Fox and Friends!
Right, I think having sources gives credibility to each argument. Otherwise, its just more noise.
They're called Links- maybe you can tell they're underlined- good luck with the whole InterWebz
Yes they are called links, and when you go to the link (source), they are secondary sources. That means someone has put their interpretation onto the original source. I value the actual original source to said accusations. That helps maintain trustworthiness, something that is called to question in our media diet. Hope this helps clarify, rick? If further explanation is necessary read Mattinflorida below.
Given Paul Ryan penned the bill in question to let women die, I would say she is on target, and I would be dead if Paul Ryan and his extremist friends had their way. There is no way I will trust another republican to vote for them until their religious voices and laws are silenced for good.
Keep up the great work Sandra Fluke, you have no idea how many of us support you.
Another guy out here who supports you! Just want you to see evidence from two of us!. Thanks, Jason, for your supportive comment, too!
I read this article and was immediately appalled at Paul Ryan. However, further investigation made me realize the motivation to produce an article like this so far from the truth it is disgusting. Has anyone else besides me take the time read the bills? For instance, the first bill is really called Protection of Life Act and can be found on the govtrack.us site. It clearly states (Sec. 2 Article 4) that funding will not be given UNLESS it is a case of rape, incest, "‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." The abortion issue is already a heated debate. Why do "journalists" even opinion sections continue to spark rage baed on untruthful claims? You have some explaining to do Sandra Fluke.
Is Bobby Jindahl an American? He was conceived OUTSIDE of the USA and he was brought to the USA to be born a citizen.
So, MattinFlorida, you seem to have drifted off the links that were offered. Where in any of your bills does it say that a woman who was raped can get an abortion if there is no health threat? You missed so many points and used such shoddy research that you don't seem to grasp the argument Ms Fluke presented, nor do you command a sense of context of Mr Ryan's positions on the record. What's your problem? Are you voting for Romney/Ryan? Or do you simply not know how to follow links to original sources? Let me get this straight, because a rape victim has no serious medical need for an abortion, she should not have a choice? I think you are rather cavalier in your grasp of the issues of pregnancy, rape, and the right of a woman to bring forth a child into this world. Men like you don't deserve control over their lives, in any way whatsoever. One more thought, it the history of mankind, there has NEVER been a pregnancy and birth of a child wherein a man was not involved. Women don't get pregnant without them, so try to gain a little grasp of the full nature of how those things come about, and stop insisting that only men like Ryan should control every women's pregnancy from conception to birth. I'n sure that point goes over your head, but do try to get the message here, if men are free to screw around with women, women should be free to decide the consequences that affect only women's bodies.
MattinFlorida,
There was a case in Arizona where a woman came into an emergency room at a Catholic hospital dying. The only way to save her life was to abort the child she was with. The decision was run up the chain of decisions and finally a Nun on the board overruled everyone and gave the doctor's permission to save the woman's life through the abortion. Do you know what happened to that Nun? She was excommunicated. The woman lived because of her choice and can care for her other 4 children. Had the choice been up to a man, the 11 week old fetus would have died and the four children she already had would have been left with a mother. Its very serious to women that no man should be able to deny us life because we just happen to be pregnant at the time. If the fetus isn't viable the mother's life should be first and foremost. If the child is viable, do a premature birth and try to save them both. But, no woman should die because of someone else's religious beliefs, EVER.
MattinFlorida,
You're looking at the wrong section.
Later in the act there is a modification called "Nondiscrimination of Abortion." From the govtrack.us site you mentioned:
(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--
(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions; (B) require or provide such training; (C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or (D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions." (emphasis added)
This means that hospitals are free to refuse a patient for any reason and not suffer discrimination by federal authorities, which in turn means Fluke's statement is correct.
DBeta: I can understand why you would have concern about this section. What this simply means is that the government can't treat hospitals differently on the stance of abortion. Here is where the debate would probably kick in and I am not here to do that. In my experience as a state hospital lawyer, i have never read a hospital policy even a faith-based hospital that says the would not do an abortion if the mothers life was in danger. It's just not what they do. Now, SpyderGurl on there has a story and accusation of a hospital that apparently was accused. Hospitals are put in place to protect all life. In my experience, they do not have a vendetta against women as some might suggest. What I have seen these hospitals do is refuse patients for elective abortions. In other cases (rape specifically) I have seen these hospitals refer the patients to other hospitals.
So a hospital is the jury to determine if a rape has happened?
Given the amount of catholic hospitals there are, I wouldn't trust them. They have been attacking their own nuns for not being political enough and doing too much for the poor. I would be dead if it were for Paul Ryans thought process, go screw yourselves republicans, this independent women will only consider democrats and independents to vote for from now on.
Sister Simone is someone who makes me think there really is a G-d
BailofRights, you are absolutely right: Ryan (and Romney) are the 21st. Century exemplars of "basic conservative values"; and, please understand this, that's the problem! They are professed proponents of "small government" except as the concept applies to perks, tax breaks and subsidies for millionaires and billionaires, a woman's right to determine what's best for her own bodies, equal pay for equal work for women, unfettered voting rights for minorities and seniors, and the lists goes on and on. Yes, you're right, "conservative values" are what the Romney / Ryan ticket is all about-"back to the future", when "Robber Barrons" ruled the American economy, with an 'iron hand", via law and public policy biased toward protection of the status quo, and their fortunes. I remember reading Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. However, in my case, thank God, I remember how insanely repressive, unfair and immoral it felt to me, even then. Apparently, Congressman Ryan, never became mature enough to grow beyond Ayn Rand. Where's the "proof" you ask? You'll find more than enough of it in his voting record, his speeches, and between the covers of Ms Rand's most infamous works. If all of this isn't enough for you, you might try looking into the soul God gave you, for the answers. Oh, the way, if you decide to Google Ms. Rand, it may prove of interest to you that, when she died, she was receiving government benefits, in the form of Social Security, etc. Alas, when it comes to blatant and unabashed hypocrisy, as always, so-called "conservatives" have no peer.
Yoda45, I am absolutely with you regarding the hypocrisy of so-called "small government" proponents and "libertarians." While I sympathize with your objections to Ms. Rand's Objectivist (hah) philosophy, and agree that most of those who purport to ascribe to it have a limited and rather juvenile world view, I don't think one can write her off entirely simply because of the current pervading interpretation of her work. While I certainly don't agree with everything, or sometimes even most, of what she writes, I do believe she was an intelligent and insightful woman. An example, pertinent to the topic at hand:
libertarians by and large are not religious and are solely economic in their views. Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian, he has just used Ayn Rands name to gather support among the pot heads. Libertarians are largely socially liberal, but their extreme views on economics have led them to an unholy alliance with the evangelicals and have formed what I can only consider a fascist theocratic movement that is insidious and unconstitutional.
JohnDavis: Are you offended I went to the actual bill itself and read it instead of reading the biased links of Pro-Choice groups that were presented bu the journalist? The answer to your first question about rape is found in, Section 2 Article 4. It refutes this very first bullet that they author gives us. Don't take my word for it, READ IT! I didn't look at her other bullets since the first bullet was so far off, I'd rather not spend my time on this.
As you can see in my evidence, I am not arguing about support for or again Paul Ryan, I am not pretending that rape is not an absolutely terrible thing. I simply pointing out that the accusation of this first bullet listed is based on untruthful information. Again, please read the bill and tell me you think I'm wrong. It is very easy to understand.
After you finish reading it, come back on here and apologize to me for saying "Men like you don't deserve control over any of their lives" as if I made a statement reguarding a stance one way or another. Don't think for a second I don't know something about this topic and have very personal connections to a rape victim. Your comments toward me are assumtive vulgar.
Thanks for sharing the story SpyderGirl. Terrible story and maybe just maybe being excommunicated for saving a life is ok. They both very well could have died.
Please see comments above, I was only fact checking this story, not making a case for any other stance. Simply saying what was actually in this bill.
I always have to clarify the real world scenarios. If you really want to see a scary site for women, go to thepillkills.com sometime. Its chalked full of lies and misinformation. The fights we're having will not stop at abortion. They will keep going until we're back to 1959.
On that note, I was at work and glanced at your post and thought you were calling into question whether those types of exemptions were necessary.
Mattinflorida,
While i dont support Ryan/Romney, people need to not pick on you for not buying into an article "whole hog." For Christs sake people, he didnt say anyting partisen but questioned the bias of the sources cited. This is not a crime, this is someting each and every one of us should be doing instead of just buying SLANTED LINE OF CRAP we are fed on Fox News or MSNBC respectively.
Because guess what, neither produce news, both produce ENTERTAINMENT and its your job to not get worked up into a tizzie and start demonizing the othe side of the aisle, and to educate yourself.
when the news is snipped into headlines and vitriol, no one learns anything. Kuds to MattinFlordia for going to the source material and questioning reporting. Even if you dont agree with matts assesmetn, this is someting as a nation we could all stand to do more of.
Ahhhh...more lies from Sandra Fluke...Now for the truth...
called the “Let Women Die Bill”; it is called the “Protect Life Act” (HR…..). This allows Catholic Hospitals to refuse
abortions. (Military hospitals do not
ever provide abortions) Paul Ryan’s
position has always been against abortions Except where the life of the mother
is in danger. This is completely
opposite of what this article is saying.
Also, she tries to say that he is against letting military women use
private funds to have abortions in military hospitals, but again, no military
hospital performs abortions.
expected to pass) states that a human life begins at conception. Basically, it would POSSIBLY pave the way for
outlawing abortions and destroying embryos.
IVF is not mentioned at all and has nothing to do with this law. As far as the “ectopic pregnancy” scenario,
again, Paul Ryan has supported abortions when the life of the mother is in
danger, so again, this is a lie.
Ledbetter fair pay act does nothing to “equalize” pay for women, it simply
expanded the limitations to file suit in court.
did not decrease funding to Title X, it simply prevents that money from going
to Planned Parenthood. Title X supports
many other family planning centers that do not perform abortions. (Personally, I don’t want my tax money going
to pay for anyone’s abortion!!!)
it yourself and there is no problem…
1a. She said 'referred to' not called. The same way that the Affordable Care Act is referred to as Obamacare. Please read carefully before you complain.
1b. The comment about military hospitals is about the fact that Ryan was voting against legislation that would allow military hospitals to perform abortions. The military supports this legislation, Ryan did not. She is not wrong to point out that Ryan has consistently voted against this.
1c. If he was against an exemption in the case of the life of the mother, then he should have voted against the Protect Life Act as it allows hospitals to refuse abortions when the life of a woman is endangered. He didn't.
2a. Whether it passes or not is not the issue - he voted for something that gives an embryo the same rights as a full human being. This would make abortion illegal - it is the whole purpose behind the bill. But, it would also make many forms of birth control technically illegal. Or are you implying that it will be like Leviticus - we'll use it to enforce the rules we want - gays are bad - but ignore what isn't convienient - clothes of mixed cloth. So if a 'pro-life' person wants IVF they'll destroy as many embryos as they need to, but if a teen gets pregnant on a Friday night - that's sanctified?
3a. The Ledbetter act was necessary to give women the right to sue employers that were breaking the law. It might have passed in 1963, but as women still don't have equal pay, I guess it needs more to be effective. So, of course it does help to equalise pay as it gives a clear consequence for breaking the law. Why would Ryan vote against this? But he did!
4. No federal funding pays for any abortions through Planned Parenthood. Your tax dollars help to fund cancer screenings, birth control and breast exams, etc. Please learn your facts about PP. But I guess you are saying that women who are the victims of rape and incest don't deserve your tax support either?
5. Are you asleep? There is one - 1 - yes, only one! clinic in all of Mississippi - what if you can't get to it? Or you don't want someone sticking an ultrasound wand up your vagina? Ryan and his ilk are making it more and more difficult to get an abortion - which is a woman's constitutional right! If 5 was true, Ryan wouldn't be voting as he is.
Don't set yourself as some truth bearer when you can't say one 'fact' that is true.
Stacey2006 - you need to check your facts, particularly those concerning who pays for an abortion.
While Ms. Fluke writing is average (for a graduate of law school), the context of the reason she wrote this article seems pretty straight forward and is found at the very end: "She has endorsed and campaigned for President Obama."
If you're expecting an objective, journalistic approach, you're not going to get it. If you're expecting scholarly writing from her, best go read her article(s) from her days of law review. If you're looking for something that is biased, and intended to distort, twist, or otherwise persuade the reader to accept an analysis that has a predetermined outcome/goal, then you've found what you're looking for. I'm sure the Romney/Ryan camp has its own surrogates publishing similar articles on Fox News and the WSJ attacking Obama and Biden.
@Frenchie: Of course, this is a biased article. That's why it's labeled 'Commentary'.
You do remember who Sandra Fluke is, don't you? Try to keep up.
The question is, can you cite references to contradict her?
Otherwise, what have you added to the discussion?
This article is about the idiot nominated to be a VP candidate.
Let's keep to that.
..
Word are great, aren't they? I mean, consider the so-called "Let Women Die Bill." Sensational! Dramatic! Can we call the Roe v Wade decision something along the lines of the "Destroy Babies In Terrible Ways for Fun, Profit and Convenience Decision"? Can we call partial birth abortions the "Crush the Baby's Skull Right Before It Magically Becomes a Person Procedure"? A D&C could be called the "Scrape 'em Out, Cut 'em Out, Suck 'em Out Procedure." And so on...
One party wants to ensure that the most innocent of our people - our babies - are not murdered in what should be the safest place on earth. For that, they are demonized and accused of hating women. Another party wants to allow said murder - and force those against it to pay for it. For that, they are lauded as "progressive" and what-not. In the meantime, while the arguments swirl and the names are called, babies continue to die. They died yesterday and today, and they will die tomorrow. God help us.
Sort of like, "clean air act", "no child left behind" "patriot act" "homeland security act" "the gwbush team will not screw over the country act" and so forth. Yeah words are strange things.
It is not murder so said the Supreme Court. I know you have heard of them. Take it up with the Supreme Court. Ever notice how your dream boys the gop NEVER once introduced a bill over turning Roe V Wade, why is that? Did them baby killing dems control them? You do know that 95 real people died today in America from guns no?
If you're looking for me to defend the PATRIOT Act, then you're heading in the wrong direction. Kudos for bringing Bush into the discussion, though. When in doubt, whip Bush out, and all of that.
Also, the SCOTUS has a history of choosing the wrong side of a debate only to be shown up by history - see Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson. If a SCOTUS ruling reverses Roe v. Wade in the next decade and states choose to outlaw abortion, will you be cool with abortion suddenly being classified as murder? By what you just said, you should be.
As for why the GOP has never introduced such a bill, go ask them if you're that curious. What does that have to do with the pending election? Also: If 95 "real" people died today from guns, then may justice prevail. Life is sacred. Now, perhaps you're on the cusp of taking up the "guns kill people, so outlaw those evil guns" screed; whatever your point was, at least you recognize the value that some human life has - and the expectation that we should be free from harm imposed by others. Why is it so difficult to extend that to the unborn?
Yep IF the SCOTUS overturns Roe and makes it murder, that is the law.
I know why the gop did not try one bit to overturn Roe, they know they are in the minority and know they will awake a group they prefer to leave sleeping.
The unborn are simply that unborn, the insane notion that some cluster of cells should be called a human is humorous.
The pending election is a continuation of the current. With the House Senate an WH up for grabs I feel this has a lot to do with the pending elections.
USA has more gun deaths than any other nation and any way you try to slice it. IF you care about life why do you favor guns for nearly everyone?
Sandra, I am not sure what planet some of the rest of these are from, but this information is dead on. I applaud you mi'lady, and blow kisses from afar.
And I am not going to indulge the rest, but you do surprisingly good work.
It will be read, by many.
And like you, I actually use my name. It is interesting that those that don't view the Congressional Record as a citation won't use theirs.
KindofBored, I just want to contribute this one thing. If you are not one to feel comfortable getting an abortion, then awesome! That's grand. Don't have one! It's a free country, right? But not all of us have you're view point. Women could always go back to being stabbed to death with coat hangers, but that sort of didn't work out for a reason. Women have fought for decades to have the choice on whether to have the baby or not. Roe vs. Wade was an improvement in women rights. I'd prefer to not move backwards from that.
I personally just feel violated having someone else tell me whether I am allowed to have an abortion or use certain types of birth control or not. On top of that, I'm being told this from a male. I know that for security I have to trade some of my freedom, but there is a line, and that's crossing it.
I wonder how violated an unborn child feels when it's being put to death?
Ah, yes - the old "back-alley" abortion argument. We need to make it safe for people to do horrendous things to the helpless! Barbaric. Would you have a problem with a mother smothering her one week old with a pillow?
Since there are laws on the books making smothering a child illegal, that would be a crime.
What law is broken when a woman has an abortion? Do you not believe in following laws or do you just follow the laws you like?
You are going under the assumption that a fetus at conception has the ability to feel anything to promote this personhood amendment. In fact the neuro pathways will not have formed enough for months to do so.
The supreme court ruled that a fetus is part of a woman up to the point that it could survive outside of the woman and that is at the minimum of five months. While I do support limitations on late term abortions, these emotional tugs that pro lifers give to try to sway people their way are not effective because of the inaccuracies.
The religious right does not respect anyones right to have a belief outside of theirs, and think we should be a "Christian" nation. Thomas Jefferson said many times religion did not factor into the constitution and its making, God did not enter the federal language until McCarthy and his fear tactics in the fifties that are much like what republicans are doing today.
If and when Christians wake up and realize that if they allow religion to come into play with law their rights will inevitably be trounced on to worship as they please. That eventually a Muslim, a Buddhist or some other religion will make a law that makes your rights nil. The constitution protects your right to be a Christian, it has never trounced on it. Like it protects my rights to be an atheist.
KindOfBored, a fetus doesn't have the capacity to perceive pain until into the third trimester, so to answer your question about what it feels, pretty much nothing.
Source:
if i had a magic wand, i'd use it to have these extremist republicans switch places with women of poor economic and social status. let them see how it all is from the women's point of view. let them experience rape, abuse, poverty, and fear. get them pregnant due to rape or consent but with no contraception and let ol' mitts and his pal struggle through it all. bet they'd change their minds pretty quickly, eh? especially if i chose not to change them back to their own selves with all their sacred wealthy white male priviledges.
sadly i don't have a magic wand.
Great work, Sandra!
The usual tactics of conservative trollery have responded here -- some claim you offer no citations because they cannot follow a link, then a quick backpedal to claim those sources are all secondary (albeit with their own links to the primary sources). Some cherry pick parts of the bills you cite to challenge your interpretation, ignoring the parts relevant to and supportive of your argument. When challenged, they argue the law doesn't matter because no hospital would actually do that (naive much?) or that law was never going to pass anyway (cold comfort, that). And for others, none of this matters because they only care about the little babies, as if they could cuddle and coo at a collection of undifferentiated cells clinging to a uterus wall. What astounds me is how these kinds of responses support your thesis of the acrobatics folks are willing to go through to perpetuate their disbelief.
With Ryan and Akins as exemplars, we see the narrow focus of the right to life argument: we care so much about the unborn fetus....until it is born, and then all bets are off. Screw the suffering of poor children; we gotta balance the budget AND cut taxes on the wealthiest among us. I've long suspected that the whole abortion argument would go away if we could transplant an embryo into the body (male or female) of those who are so against abortion. Sure, some of the zealots would martyr themselves to carry to term and care to adulthood for the embryos they see as "little babies," but the vast majority would probably drop the issue and move on to something (even) more self-serving. I doubt Ryan or Romney or Akins would ever accept an unwanted pregnancy in their own bodies.
A hypothetical argument, sure, but then so is the faith-based argument that a fertilized egg is a "person." Why stop there? Lets make the sin of Onanism a crime. And then arrest all male Members of Congress (yes, both aisles) for masturbation. Because, as the song says, "Every Sperm is Sacred."
I cannot imagine how any woman (or any man who cares about women) could vote for the GOP in this election cycle. Yes, Obama is far from "perfect" (name me any politician that is!), but his administration and the Dems in general represent a stark contrast from the suppression of basic rights represented on the Right. Those on the Right shuffle and dance to hide or reframe that stark contrast; they backpedal from Akin because he "went too far." And why? Because they know how damaging that stark contrast is for their political future.
Yours is a powerful and intelligent voice, Sandra. I'm sorry it comes to us after trial by fire in the kiln of conservative shock-jocks. But I am so glad you are part of the public conversation.