The GOP War on Women - The Megathread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fox News has detected at least a dozen liberal Wars on Culture, but a conservative War on Women?  *pfft*

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

Women don't play a large role in the Fox News Culture unless they are pretty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) continues the outreach:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So where's the fire?  Or is it sufficient now to think that a human life begins at conception to be waging war on women? (I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I can't see where holding it makes one a warrior against women either.)  If he'd made the revised post originally, I suspect the same people who are lambasting him for using the word "host" would be lambasting him for using the phrase "bearer of the child" since in their view, what is inside the mother isn't a child until it is born.  So O great sage, I ask you, how can one phrase what Martin is trying to say so as to avoid causing offense to those who are pro-abortion?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe not describing women as inanimate human factories?  Oh but "some refer to them as mothers" so I guess it was ok.

I agree with Martin that his use of the word "host" was intended as sarcasm of the pro-abortion position that the product can be pulled from the assembly area for disposal at any time before final delivery.  Since that hits a bit too close to the mark, no wonder it is getting a backlash who favor allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

But back to my question O great sage.  It was "How can one phrase what Martin is trying to say so as to avoid causing offense to those who are pro-abortion?" and not "Why do you think how Martin phrased what he said caused offense to those who are pro-abortion?"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"O great sage".  "Pro-abortion".

3/10

Only 3 out of 10 on the outrage meter?  I was aiming for a 5 or 6.  Enough to stir some indignation without veering into complete trollery.  After all, I'm not really in either the anti-choice or the pro-abortion camps, but like most Americans, in between the two poles of this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then here's the reality:

That chart is based on number of services provided, not on how much money Planned Parenthood makes from them.  Even assuming the profit margin is equal on all services, because an abortion costs considerably more than most of those other services, abortion has to be providing more than 3% of revenues.

While that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Patrick is engaging in hyperbole by claiming that abortion was the sole revenue source for Planned Parenthood, that doesn't change the validity of his question: "Why are they closing clinics if they’re making money on providing women’s health?"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without commenting on the underlying issue, arguably abortions have considerably more expenses incurred to perform, and thus it's an assumption that the rate of profit isn't considerably different compared to their other services?

They also are more expensive, and potentially could have a higher rate of return.  In the absence of any data that I have on the costs and thus of the rate of return, I limited myself to commenting on gross revenues rather than net profit.  Still, it would seem that that providing abortion services was a net money maker (before accounting for any additional facilities expenses incurred so as to be able to perform abortions there) for Planned Parenthood as otherwise it would make economic sense to remain open and provide those services that they could in that location.  The only reason to close if an inability to perform abortions did not impact their bottom line adversely would be if Planned Parenthood is willing to provide other services only if they can also provide abortions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do you keep talking as if Planned Parenthood makes a profit?  You do know what kind of organization it is, right?

If you think non-profit organizations never consider the bottom line, then you truly are naive.  While they don't distribute profits as shareholder dividends, they do use them to expand operations and staff salaries.  Being non-profit does not make an organization immune to market forces, it only affects what they do if they are successful.

The complete closing of Planned Parenthood centers in the wake of additional restrictions on abortion makes economic sense only if they needed the profits from providing abortion to fund the operation of the other services they provided at those locations.  Now, it may be they are trying to make some sort of political statement by closing those locations, but if they think they can shame the Texas GOP into reversing its position on abortion by doing so, then they are sadly and profoundly mistaken.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would any competent journalist waste the time of their audience asking Republicans about this particular bit of inanity?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would any competent journalist waste the time of their audience asking Republicans about this particular bit of inanity?

Because of Limbaugh's influence among the base, and because politicians who criticized him often had to apologize publicly within a day or two.

So? I still don't see the point unless you think the job of journalists is to manufacture controversy.  Granted, many journalists seem to think so, and in some cases they'd be right, but not this one.  Other than the hyperbole about gender being her only qualification, I can't really say that he's obviously wrong here as El Rushbo often is.  Her record as an office holder is such that if she weren't a woman, I can't honestly see where she would be the all but anointed Democratic nominee right now.  She'd still likely be among those we'd be speculating as possible nominees, but not the nominee in all but formalities that she is now.  Her record as Senator and Secretary of State while solid was hardly spectacular.