Thursday, January 20, 2011

Haters Gotta Hate, Moose Gotta...Moose

Jim Taranto over at the WSJ believes he has figured out the "irrational hatred" of Sarah Palin by the left, and does a spectacularly irrational job of it by pinning it on "liberal feminist women".

We'd say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today's topic).

An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, "feminist" is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.

That is because what used to be called feminism--the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination--is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin--especially not Hillary Clinton, the left's favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.

It's pretty impressive saying Sarah Palin proves women are equal politically and then in the same paragraph saying Hillary Clinton's political power derives from being Bill Clinton's wife.  That would imply that women are not politically equal, particularly at the highest levels of American government.  But back to how Palin somehow threatens sexual identity of irrational liberal women...

But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology--most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.

As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.

To the extent that "feminism" remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the "right to choose," but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree--that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.

So government cannot fix the intrinsic workplace inequality that Taranto says exists between men and women, but that a government solution to the morally problematic question of abortion is needed.  Government cannot legislate equality in the workplace, but it must legislate the reproductive choices of women.  Maybe Taranto believes the former is because of the latter, I don't know.

The fact that Sarah Palin wants the government to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their uterus makes the dislike women have for Palin who are opposed to that "irrational"?

What's "irrational" is one one side of their mouths conservatives who scream that buying health insurance is fascism, but that banning abortion is a proper use of government authority.   I guess it hasn't occurred to Jim that these fears of government overreach by the new GOP House leadership on abortion may not be "irrational".

What the GOP is doing with H.R. 3 is something entirely different. They’re not only placing new restrictions on abortion services but also expanding the role of government in private life. As CAP’s Jessica Arons put it, “H.R. 3 would redefine the concept of government funding far beyond the current common understanding. Rather than simply prohibiting the use of federal funds to directly pay for abortion, H.R. 3 would insert itself into every crevice of government activity and prohibit even private and non-federal government funds from being spent on any activity related to the provision of abortion any time federal money is involved in funding or subsidizing other, non-abortion-related activities.

It's all so...irrational...if you think about it.

11 comments:

  1. Anthony Weiner:

    "You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now popular drinking game of 'you take a shot whenever Republicans say something that's not true.' Please assign a designated driver."

    Zandar:

    What's "irrational" is one one side of their mouths conservatives who scream that buying health insurance is fascism, but that banning abortion is a proper use of government authority.

    Take a drink (Mmmm...good tequila).

    The government isn't banning abortion in H.R. 3. This is proven by what CAP's Jessica Aron says in the Think Progress quote.

    I'm assuming none of the pro-abortion supporters here (except for StarStorm) have read the grand jury report on Kermit Gosnall. By design, not only did the Pennsylvania Department of Health and other agencies deliberately choose not to enforce any of the state's health and safety laws of Gosnall's abortion clinic, but also deliberately chose to not enforce any of those laws at ALL of Pennsylvania's abortion clinics. For nearly 20 years. The report clearly states that officials at those agencies are lawyering up because they know they are in big trouble. Pro-abortion politics are why Gosnall may have gotten away with his alleged crimes for as long as he did. This is what happens when the true politics of death, abortion, goes unregulated and unenforced. God knows how many other houses of horror exist in Pennsylvania's abortion clinics.

    But instead of addressing this, Zandar chooses to lie about H.R. 3.

    Take Weiner's advice and get a designated driver.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's all you have? Where did I say HR 3 banned abortion?

    I said "conservatives want to ban abortion". Long been stated that the ultimate goal of the GOP on abortion was to overturn Roe v. Wade, and then ban abortion nationally. Barring that, they want to make it as difficult as possible to get.

    The Gosnell case? Dude deserves whatever jail time he gets if he's outside the medical regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I said "conservatives want to ban abortion".

    Another drink of tequila.

    Conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade, you are right, because it isn't based on the Constitution (yes, I know it's the law of the land; it's only law until it isn't). What conservatives want is to let the states determine the level of abortion people are willing to support. Many want a full ban, many don't. Most want something in between. I fall into the latter category.

    ...and then ban abortion nationally.

    And another shot of tequila. Good thing I can hold my liquor.

    I explained this already.

    Barring that, they want to make it as difficult as possible to get.

    They don't want federal funding to be involved in any aspect of abortion. Rightly so. As written by Congressional Democrats, Obamacare allows federal funding for abortions. That's why Obama had to issue an EO so that it wouldn't, but that's only if the Hyde Amendment stays in effect, which has to renewed every year. And if pro-abortion Democrats could get rid of it, they would, and the pro-abortion Obama would sign off on getting rid of it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That makes zero sense.

    A great number of states already have instituted a number of restrictions on who can have an abortion, when in the pregnancy it can be offered, and instituting a waiting period.

    This is with Roe in effect now.

    If what conservatives want is "something in between" then there's no reason to overturn Roe unless the goal is to ban abortions totally. And if you believe that if Roe was overturned tomorrow, that the Tea Party wouldn't demand the House GOP immediately draft a law fully outlawing abortion period, you're crazy.

    "State's rights" here is a red herring. The goal is to rid the nation of abortions, period.

    Your problem as usual Steve is you cannot tell the difference between your opinion -- what you believe is the truth or should be the truth -- and actual facts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Gosnell case? Dude deserves whatever jail time he gets if he's outside the medical regulations.

    Sure he does. What about about State officials that ignored enforcing regulations and laws of ALL abortion clinics? For nearly 20 years? This is one guy. I have no doubt there is more than one abortion clinic in the state of Pennsylvania. It's probably safe to say there are more like Gosnall out there. I think it's also safe to say there are abortion-supporting officials in other states who believe their politics regarding abortion is more important than enforcing the laws they are required to enforce.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And you make my earlier post point for me here: regulating our air, our water, our food, our health care, our drugs, our schools, our roads, our businesses, it's DON'T TREAD ON ME!

    But regulation of a woman's uterus? We must check every abortion clinic in the country and triple check it now! We found someone violating regulations! Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!

    ReplyDelete
  7. A great number of states already have instituted a number of restrictions on who can have an abortion, when in the pregnancy it can be offered, and instituting a waiting period.

    This is with Roe in effect now.


    Another drink.

    The first restriction, who can have an abortion, DUH!!! You know who is limited in many of those states? Minors. This is obvious. The second restriction, when in the pregnancy can an abortion be done, was originally mandated by Roe. For what you list as the third restriction, how is instituting a waiting period a restriction? Afraid someone might change their mind? A waiting period isn't a restriction by any stretch of the imagination.

    If what conservatives want is "something in between" then there's no reason to overturn Roe unless the goal is to ban abortions totally.

    Drink. Wrong again. I explained this already.

    And if you believe that if Roe was overturned tomorrow, that the Tea Party wouldn't demand the House GOP immediately draft a law fully outlawing abortion period, you're crazy.

    Drink. I'm going to make you pay for the designated driver.

    You haven't told the truth about the people in the Tea Party movement since I started reading your blog. You don't have a clue what it is or who the people are.

    We must check every abortion clinic in the country and triple check it now! We found someone violating regulations!

    I thought you wanted abortions to be safe. You don't?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll throw out one other point made by Ace. Zandar has made it a point for nearly two weeks to tie conservatives to the Tuscon tragedy, going so far as to seriously misrepresent what Glenn Beck said last June. Zandar and others claim hard-edged conservative rhetoric (not liberal rhetoric; no, not that ever) had some sort of role in the shooting. That's the standard set by the left. Fine.

    I'm thinking that Gosnall and the state officials who ignored his and every other Pennsylvania abortion clinic over the last 20 years could very well have been encouraged by the pro-abortion left (I don't call it pro-choice because that isn't accurate).

    How many times does the pro-abortion left need to tell people that abortion restrictions need to be lifted in all cases? How often has the pro-abortion left says there needs to be more "education" and a "destigmatizating" of abortions? How many times does the left tell the country that abortions is health care that needs to be paid for by the taxpayers. All this rhetoric. And then we read about Gosnall.

    Those are questions somebody should have asked before state officials who are a part of the pro-abortion left decided to stop doing their jobs. To stop regulating all abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. For 20 years.

    Zandar is right when he said that the odds that hard-edged conservative rhetoric had something to do with what Loughner did are astronomically low. I would say the odds that pro-abortion rhetoric had everything to do with what Gosnall did are quite good. In fact, I'm sure it's a winning bet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. SteveAR, if you don't believe in abortions, don't have any. End of thread.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So once again, SteveAR's opinion on abortion, the Supreme Court, the Tea Party, the Constitution, Congress, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, and America is fact, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, because Steve's opinion on everything is fact.

    Sad. Just sad.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sad. Just sad.

    Feeling guilty for what happened in Pennsylvania, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete