GOP notches another victory in the War on Women

[Gravis Marketing]

Scott Walker's making the most of his melting Republican majority in the legislature with a slew of legislative victories against women.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20120407/WDH0101/204070455/Gov-Scott-Walker-quietly-signs-abortion-sex-education-bills-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Republicans hadn't yet opened up a front on the equal pay issue, but Walker struck a blow for his side.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html

[Californian Tony]

I doubt this will help him in the recall election.

[Frodo]

I believe we already have a megathread on this topic.

[Gravis Marketing]

I believe we already have a megathread on this topic.

Cool. Moderators can move these updates to that thread if they like.

[Frodo]

I believe we already have a megathread on this topic.

Cool. Moderators can move these updates to that thread if they like.

It would also help if they stickied it instead of making people search for it...   

[Gravis Marketing]

I believe we already have a megathread on this topic.

Cool. Moderators can move these updates to that thread if they like.

It would also help if they stickied it instead of making people search for it...   

True. There's going to be many more events as the Presidential and Congressional races heat up and the overwhelming Republican majorities in the states eke out more victories at the ends of their sessions.

[Torie]

I guess having one go through more hoops to get an abortion can be described as part of a "war on women" in the hyperbolic political world in which we live, but teaching abstinence as an option in sex education classes is part of that "war" too?

The idea of equal pay for women based on some cross field comparative "worth" analysis is ludicrous, so interring that anti-market idea, is there any evidence that women these days are paid less all things being equal, and taking into account career hiatuses?  It is men actually that are a mess at the moment, with what is it, some 60% of college graduates now female?  Maybe we should focus on men for awhile, if we are going to get into the gender equality games.

I don't think the Dem "war on women" meme is a dog that is going to hunt this November. It's all hat, no cattle, and mostly BS hyperbole.  If you want to debate the abortion issue, fine, but don't demagogue it as some sort of it is all about misogyny. I just don't think voters are as dumb as the Dems assume on this one.

Thank you.

[Gravis Marketing]

I don't think the Dem "war on women" meme is a dog that is going to hunt this November. It's all hat, no cattle, and mostly BS hyperbole.  If you want to debate the abortion issue, fine, but don't demagogue it as some sort of it is all about misogyny. I just don't think voters are as dumb as the Dems assume on this one.

I don't think it stems from misogyny so much as from callousness and lack of empathy. Based on the polling, women are noticing. The big problem here is that Republicans won elections on 2010 as a reaction against Obama by moderate voters, and are legislating based on the priorities of a powerful, very conservative subset of your coalition that has a real problem with cultural changes that a large majority of Americans made peace with decades ago, including many non-Democrats. Make hay while the sun shines, eh?

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, seeing the advocacy for people against Trayvon Martin and the ridiculous lengths to go to prove that he probably deserved to die, I have a serious empathy deficit for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have no problem seeing people other than them ****ed over and then chuckling about it. The war on women is part of that callous calculation. Maybe I'm a "dumb" for thinking there's something wrong with Santorum's main funder going up on tv and making that aspirin joke, for all all the conservative leaders attacking Sandra Fluke as a slut and a whore because she testified about birth control. Maybe I "don't get it" and shouldn't be taken seriously. But at this point, not being taken seriously by the likes of people who hear about Trayvon Martin and immediately construct hypotheses why he was unworthy of life and the real privileged member of society, or who feel women who seek an abortion should be required to submit to the equivalent of rape by a doctor, I would consider a badge of honor.

[Torie]

I don't think the Dem "war on women" meme is a dog that is going to hunt this November. It's all hat, no cattle, and mostly BS hyperbole.  If you want to debate the abortion issue, fine, but don't demagogue it as some sort of it is all about misogyny. I just don't think voters are as dumb as the Dems assume on this one.

I don't think it stems from misogyny so much as from callousness and lack of empathy. Based on the polling, women are noticing. The big problem here is that Republicans won elections on 2010 as a reaction against Obama by moderate voters, and are legislating based on the priorities of a powerful, very conservative subset of your coalition that has a real problem with cultural changes that a large majority of Americans made peace with decades ago, including many non-Democrats. Make hay while the sun shines, eh?

Abortion is an issue of conscience. It has little or nothing to do about gender as an animating principle.  For women who find that issue to be of high salience, they have already divided on that one, and did so long ago. What is on the table now, given Roe and its progeny, is hardly of much import anyway. "Requiring doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions," = rape of women by their doctor?  

Sure one can pick and choose over the top rhetoric on both sides (Limbaugh, Santorum (Friess (sp) is an idiot by the way, and he should know better than to get anywhere near the media), Maher, Olbermann, that horrible Congresswoman from Florida, etc., that is indefensible. What does that have to do with anything?

Returning to the war on men, I might add to that the evisceration of male sports in college (other than the big money makers of course), so that we have equal numbers of male and female athletes.

[opebo]

Tory it isn't only about your precise definition of what is or is not a 'war on women', but rather the obvious fact that the GOP is overall opposed to the interests of women, just as they are overall opposed to the interests of Blacks and Hispanics.   Another way to put this is that the GOP is the party which is for maximizing subjugation of women, blacks, and hispanics.

It is the party of you - of rich white men - and this is obvious to everyone, including a huge number of 'middle class' suburban women (even white women!)

[Gravis Marketing]

Abortion is an issue of conscience. It has little or nothing to do about gender as an animating principle.  

That's naive. There are many reasons to oppose abortion, only some of which are a sincere belief that it is a crime. There are reasons that go beyond that in either direction... for some people, it is part and parcel with opposition to contraception and to sexuality outside of a very traditional role, and that is what we have seen this past year with the war on contraception and the chuckling about sluts and whores. That does not play well with women who respect a principled objection to abortion but recognizing slut-shaming when they see it. On the other side, there are plenty of politicians who don't really care about abortion but know which side their bread is buttered on, and fight the fight on behalf of their constituents. That's all well and good, except when their main point of reference is their lack of empathy toward women and general contempt, which leads to restrictions that infantilize women who seek abortions, or which subject them to medically unnecessary rape.

I refuse to ascribe to the majority of anti-abortion politicians the sincerity or lack of gender issues of their sincere followers. Perhaps you take Newt Gingrich and Dan Burton at their word that they really don't have opinions about women's sexuality? I've seen too many cases of womanizing or vulgar Republicans preaching morality on abortion or homosexuality because it cost them nothing.

[Torie]

Tory it isn't only about your precise definition of what is or is not a 'war on women', but rather the obvious fact that the GOP is overall opposed to the interests of women, just as they are overall opposed to the interests of Blacks and Hispanics.   Another way to put this is that the GOP is the party which is for maximizing subjugation of women, blacks, and hispanics.

It is the party of you - of rich white men - and this is obvious to everyone, including a huge number of 'middle class' suburban women (even white women!)

I guess it depends on how you define the "interests of women."  Is it in the "interests of women" to move more in the direction of rendering men dysfunctional as and uninterested in being bread winners? We seem to have found the superhighway with no speed limits to getting there.  

By the way, opebo, why do you have such trouble spelling my screen name?  Maybe if you find it too taxing, you can just call me "Steve."  Would that be easier for you?  

Sure Brittain33, politicians tend to be whores. I just don't think there is much substance there, and I suspect women are smarter than having their vote ride on all this noise. I suspect your theory about the gang of boorish men's view of female sexuality however, goes way beyond what reality might support, but it is tough to litigate what goes on in one's mind, and what the real emotions are, that are involved, so it probably isn't worth arguing about.

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

People who oppose these policies on contraception have the right to make this less convenient for them.

[Torie]

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

Well sure, of course it is, but when you agree on an issue, you break bread together. In this case, however, the Catholics think this and some other matters (per the NYC cardinal), is something akin to a "war on religion."  So add that war to the list while we are at it, along with Obama's "war on the courts" (perhaps inspired by Newt ).

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

Well sure, of course it is, but when you agree on an issue, you break bread together. In this case, however, the Catholics think this and some other matters (per the NYC cardinal), is something akin to a "war on religion."  So add that war to the list while we are at it.

LOL, that's exactly how this whole round of demagoguery started! Republicans have been claiming it was a war on religion for a while, and they launched this latest round two months ago. (I certainly remember them labeling Kennedy, Kerry etc. as anti-Catholic for opposing Catholic judges in the mid-2000s, then of course Obamacare was anti-religious, etc; the latest round started with the decision to mandate birth control coverage at employers affiliated with the Catholic church, but not of the church.) Then Democrats responded by citing the full range of efforts, and now Republicans are scrambling to hide that they ever picked this fight and are claiming it's been 100% jobs, jobs, jobs, economy, economy, economy from them all year. What goes around, comes around, one could say.

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

Well sure, of course it is, but when you agree on an issue, you break bread together. In this case, however, the Catholics think this and some other matters (per the NYC cardinal), is something akin to a "war on religion."  So add that war to the list while we are at it, along with Obama's "war on the courts" (perhaps inspired by Newt ).

Did you read Holder's response to that 5th Circuit Court's request? It was a masterpiece. They even cited a case litigated by none other than now-Sen. Ayotte demanding that the courts pay heed to the will of the legislature.

[Torie]

War on women, war on men, war on religion,  war on the courts, war on the planet, war on cars, war on drugs = war on common sense.

[Torie]

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

Well sure, of course it is, but when you agree on an issue, you break bread together. In this case, however, the Catholics think this and some other matters (per the NYC cardinal), is something akin to a "war on religion."  So add that war to the list while we are at it, along with Obama's "war on the courts" (perhaps inspired by Newt ).

Did you read Holder's response to that 5th Circuit Court's request? It was a masterpiece. They even cited a case litigated by none other than now-Sen. Ayotte demanding that the courts pay heed to the will of the legislature.

No, where is it?  Does Holder think Marbury v Madison is still good law?

[Gravis Marketing]

No, where is it?  Does Holder think Marbury v Madison is still good law?

Yes, he affirms it just before he turns the knife.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/04/dojltr5thcir.pdf

[Gravis Marketing]

War on women, war on men, war on religion,  war on the courts, war on the planet, war on cars, war on drugs = war on common sense.

Yes, it's all quite juvenile but since Dems have lost the demagoguery initiative since early 2009 and have borne the brunt of some truly stupid and insulting campaigns which were wildly successful for the Pubbies, some of us are just relieved that our leadership knows how to play this game, and probably better than Mitt Romney. We lost with honor and ineptitude with sincere folks like Gore and Kerry, who needs it?

[Torie]

No, where is it?  Does Holder think Marbury v Madison is still good law?

Yes, he affirms it just before he turns the knife.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/04/dojltr5thcir.pdf

Splendid. Next time Obama can just say (ludicrously, but he can say it), that any claim that the mandate goes beyond the reach of the interstate commerce clause is frivolous, and therefore if SCOTUS finds otherwise, it is being "activist."  

Obama insulted hopefully just about everyone's intelligence by saying that however, who knows one f'ing thing about interstate commerce constitutional law. What is Obama's clear "limiting principle" by the way?  I never heard one from team Obama. In fact, they were so pathetic, that I had to make one up for them - before then proceeding to shred it I think pretty effectively.

Obama is I suspect even more arrogant that I am, and I find that rather disturbing actually.

[opebo]

I guess it depends on how you define the "interests of women."  Is it in the "interests of women" to move more in the direction of rendering men dysfunctional as and uninterested in being bread winners? We seem to have found the superhighway with no speed limits to getting there.

What? In what way?  Are you saying men are dis-motivated by efforts towards gender equality?  I don't think feeling bad about your privilege being reduced is precisely the same thing as that.  One might as well say freeing the Black rendered Southern Planters dysfunctional as and uninterested in being cotton winners.

By the way, opebo, why do you have such trouble spelling my screen name?

My genuine apologies Torie - in fact unlike many of my misspellings, this one is entirely unintentional and not any sort of attempt to annoy you.  I'll try to avoid it, and I most certainly understand it - I get very annoyed at the 'opedo' misspelling so many indulge in.

[Gravis Marketing]

Obama is I suspect even more arrogant that I am, and I find that rather disturbing actually.

I would expect anyone who runs for President to be extraordinarily arrogant. Al Gore may have been a rare exception.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No, where is it?  Does Holder think Marbury v Madison is still good law?

Yes, he affirms it just before he turns the knife.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/04/dojltr5thcir.pdf

Splendid. Next time Obama can just say (ludicrously, but he can say it), that any claim that the mandate goes beyond the reach of the interstate commerce clause is frivolous, and therefore if SCOTUS finds otherwise, it is being "activist."  

Obama insulted hopefully just about everyone's intelligence by saying that however, who knows one f'ing thing about interstate commerce constitutional law. What is Obama's clear "limiting principle" by the way?  I never heard one from team Obama. In fact, they were so pathetic, that I had to make one up for them - before then proceeding to shred it I think pretty effectively.

Obama is I suspect even more arrogant that I am, and I find that rather disturbing actually.

You should scale back your interactions with JJ. It starts showing.