Don’t They Have The Google At Con Magazines?
Tweet
Kathryn Jean Lopez in the conservative National Review
I don’t know a single person who wants to throw a woman in jail for having an abortion.
On a PBS program aired this weekend and taped in April, new Bush domestic policy adviser Karl Zinsmeister told the host that he would personally support doctors being jailed for performing abortions, RAW STORY has discovered.
South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade .
The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.
The law was later overturned, but that doesn’t mean that the ideas behind it didn’t and don’t have support among the far right. Their end goal is the outlawing of a woman’s right to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. A byproduct of the conservative criminalization of a medical procedure would be jail time for doctors and patients.
48 Responses to “Don’t They Have The Google At Con Magazines?”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Oliver fails at reading comprehension.
“I don’t know a single person who wants to throw a woman in jail for having an abortion.”
“On a PBS program aired this weekend and taped in April, new Bush domestic policy adviser Karl Zinsmeister told the host that he would personally support doctors being jailed for performing abortions, RAW STORY has discovered.”
“The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.”
Nowhere in the examples Oliver cites does it ever state throwing a woman in jail for having an abortion.
Yes, because soliciting something that is classified as murder wouldn’t be a crime, right? Unintended/intended consequences, etc.
Mostly they don’t support putting the woman who has the abortion in jail, or punishing her in any way, only the people who perform the abortions. (Unlike in some places Central America, where having an abortion nets the woman a very hefty prison sentence). But this just makes their arguments a shambles. They’re saying abortion is murder, and that means it’s premediated, first degree murder, but they don’t want the person who commits the “murder”, who hires the people who do the “murder”, to receive any punishment. And of course these same people often support capital punishment for murder, except in this one case. Obviously they do this because it’s not politically palatable to do what their values, if applied honestly, demand.
On various blogs a couple years back there were links to this YouTube film where “pro-life” people at a demonstration were asked what the punishment should be for women who have an abortion. Their reactions made clear they hadn’t ever thought about it, and that when they did as a result of the question, their answers were inconsistent with their idea that murder had happened.
Don’t They Have The Google At Obama’s Campaign?
If they did, they’d have found the articles on McCain’s 2000 presidential race, where he was cited as being the first to really use the internet for his campaign’s benefit, and discussed how his war injuries make it extremely difficult and painful for him to use keyboards.
Instead, they put out an ad saying that McCain was some technophobic geezer.
Wow, talk about a threefer… with an ad aimed at insulting the elderly (consistently one of the heaviest-voting demographics), they also managed to insult the handicapped and veterans.
As for the substance of this article… Gravy’s already dismantled it thoroughly.
J.
“A woman who solicits from any person any medicine, drug or substance whatever, and takes it, or who submits to an operation, or to the use of any means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years.”–Arizona Revised Statute 13-3604
If abortion is murder, then women who get abortions are murderers. And murder convictions mean jail time. Conspiracy to commit murder means jail time. Supplying murder weapons to those who openly intend to use them to murder means jail time.
When the rhetoric hits the road, things get messy.
And Gravypan, some doctors just happen to be women.
Six out of the last eight blog
posts here have been about Sarah Palin, the nmber 2 person on the ticket.
Sarah Palin doesn’t want to jail anyone for having an abortion. Claire McCaskill is playing the fear card along the ridiculous card. Palin said it was a personal opinion of hers and all Obama’s lawyers and all Obama’s men can’t find any evidence of Palin’s governance being influenced by her religion or her views on abortion. None.
Byproducts… C’mon. McCaskill said this ticket wants to see rape victims who have an abortion thrown in jail. A bit of a stretch.
Claire McCaskill suffers from hysteria.
Agreed with Gravypan. I get what Oliver is trying to say, but his argument is a poor one.
I think most people agree that doctors who perform illegal procedures should be punished. The issue, however, is whether abortion should be an illegal procedure in the first place. My own opinion is that it should not be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that if abortions were illegal I would advocate letting doctors off the hook. It’s a rule of law thing.
The better argument is this. Perhaps Lopez is right that she doesn’t know anyone that wants to put a woman in jail for having an abortion. However, punishing doctors for performing abortions will do little to cut the demand for abortions. That is, many pregnant women will still undergo abortions under unsafe conditions.
So while Lopez may not know anyone who wants to put a woman in jail for having an abortion, she knows many people who are perfectly willing to stand by and watch women endanger their lives undergoing a medical procedure that many Americans support.
So, lemme get this straight. People are not only responsible for what they say, but for what Oliver thinks they really mean but didn’t say?
Man, talk about ego…
J.
So, lemme get this straight. People are not only responsible for what they say, but for what Oliver thinks they really mean but didn’t say?
Along with their byproducts.
“Sarah Palin doesn’t want to jail anyone for having an abortion. Claire McCaskill is playing the fear card along the ridiculous card.”
Yep.
I know it’s a hard concept for some of you to understand, but sometimes a politician’s own personal beliefs aren’t going to be a barometer into how they’ll actually govern.
“And Gravypan, some doctors just happen to be women.”
Yes, I realize that.
But Oliver was talking about women who are HAVING ABORTIONS. Which makes your citation of this fact irrelevant. Jon. And BTW, the statute you mentioned doesn’t mention the word murder.
Nice scare tactic.
In other news, I see the Redskins’ coaches are about as smart as Oliver. Going for two in the third quarter? Never a smart move.
I think it’s true that they don’t want people thrown in jail for having abortions — just for performing them. It takes some odd mental gymnastics to justify that position. I think they would say that it’s the doctor who is ultimately performing the “murder” since without the doctor’s help, the woman probably wouldn’t be able to do it herself. Ultimately, though, I think the reason they take this position is that it would be a lot more difficult politically to take the position that women should be thrown in jail for having an abortion.
“Claire McCaskill is playing the fear card along the ridiculous card.”
So no one on the right is advocating that women who get abortions should be jailed. What they’re advocating is that doctor’s who give abortions should be jailed, which would, of course, drive abortion underground increasing the likelihood that the procedures will be unsafe and unsound. So the right isn’t advocating that women be jailed. They’re just advocating policies that would put the lives of vulnerable women at serious medical risk.
Women certainly have nothing to fear from Palin, McCain and the right.
That’s a whole other subject, fafaroo. The subject here is McCaskill’s statement of what this ticket wants, mainly, for women who have been raped and have an abortion to be jailed. She has no idea what McCain and Palin want, and neither of them have said they want that, nor has either of them indicated that’s what they want by how they’ve governed.
So using the same criteria administered here for John McCain and Sarah Palin, Claire McCaskill is lying, and is a liar, and will lie and say anything to get Barack Obama elected.
I don’t get how people like McCain and Palin can think abortion is murder, and yet not want to see criminally punished the people (the women who have abortions) who are 50% responsible for this “murder”. As silly as it sounds, this position actually makes them “half pro-choice”.
Also, Lopez shouldn’t have done “a Google” as much as a “Youtube”. I saw a video there of a Reverend Mark Spitz who advocated jailing women for having abortions.
I don’t see how my attempt to save A (an aborted baby) produces in me a responsibility for the actions of either the person desiring the action , W (pregnant woman) , or the person performing the action , D (abortion performing doctor)
If I request a Stop sign at an intersection for the safety of the neighborhood, am I forever after responsible for every accident that occurs , because someone drives through that Stop sign?
Then those who favor abortions should be made responsible for every women who dies having one ; every woman who commits suicide over her guilt and regret at having one , and every woman who suffers psychological damage as a result of having an abortion – and, of course, every doctor and nurse who suffers guilt and remorse over their involvement in abortions .
I liked the old Republican party that loved small government. This discussion about women’s reproductive choices needs to deaded unless of course the Republicans want to start monitoring the reproductive choices of men.
besides I would much rather prefer the republican party discuss how they plan to halt the freefalling economy before worrying about my uterus and what i plan to do with it.
“So using the same criteria administered here for John McCain and Sarah Palin …”
Um, by criteria you mean the truth, right? If McCain, Palin and McCaskill are all liars, based on that criteria, I know your response to McCaskill’s lie. You seem upset by it. Good for you.
Would you now care to share with us your feelings about McCain and Palin’s bald face lies?
the concern trolls aren’t willing to spend a penny on any program to help the babies they claim to care about
“Then those who favor abortions should be made responsible for every women who dies having one ; every woman who commits suicide over her guilt and regret at having one , and every woman who suffers psychological damage as a result of having an abortion – and, of course, every doctor and nurse who suffers guilt and remorse over their involvement in abortions.”
And all of this will magically go away once abortion is made illegal.
How’d prohibition work out, Frank? Everybody stop drinking?
Alternately, fafaroo, the matter could simply be turned back over to the several states, where it was before the Supreme Court invented the “right to have an abortion” out of whole cloth.
Roe V. Wade is, if you’ll pardon the expression, an abortion of legal reasoning. It’s complete and utter bullshit, from the first word. The matter should never have been taken away from the states, where it was decided by the people of the state through their legislatures.
Overturning Roe v. Wade won’t suddenly make abortion illegal all across the United States. It’ll just make all these useless arguments actually mean something.
And I speak as someone who’s “squishily pro-choice,” who has two very handy questions that tend to reduce the most fervent people on both sides to stammering and squirming, then to vague platitudes that avoid the issue.
Kind of like how Oliver had to twist himself in a knot when he cited a quote that said “no one wants to put a woman in jail for having an abortion,” then tried to disprove it by citing two articles that talked about jailing DOCTORS who performed them — but never mentioned the women receiving the abortion.
What is it about this issue that makes the advocates so stupid — regardless of the side they’re on?
J.
“…then tried to disprove it by citing two articles that talked about jailing DOCTORS who performed them-but never mentioned the women receiving the abortion”.
If one believes that doctors should go to jail for performing abortions, then isn’t it only logical that one should believe that the women who have them should go to the clink as well?
the concern trolls aren’t willing to spend a penny on any program to help the babies they claim to care about
a 5 minute Google search will glaringly illustrate the falsehood of that statement.
fafaroo
Sep 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Then those who favor abortions should be made responsible for every women who dies having one ; every woman who commits suicide over her guilt and regret at having one , and every woman who suffers psychological damage as a result of having an abortion – and, of course, every doctor and nurse who suffers guilt and remorse over their involvement in abortions.”
And all of this will magically go away once abortion is made illegal.
It was an “if … then” statement …
You have not refuted it , or even attempted to argue against it …
a simple rewording of your statement would appear like this :
whatever negative outcomes there are for abortion , will persist, as long as abortions continue.
This is an argument for the discontinuance of abortion, not its legalization…
To the original point: Making abortion a crime , does not make it a felony, nor does it obligate the State (meaning any government entity) to put ANYONE in jail.
Doctors possess certain qualities in common that not all women desirous of abortions share:
Doctors know what life processes and physiological processes are affected by abortions
Doctors can only perform abortions willfully
Doctors profit from performing abortions
Doctors are held to be ethically responsible for any harm that they know will befall their patients as a result of their actions
Therefore, Doctors who perform abortions, SHOULD be in a different category, according to the law.
As are adults vis-a-vis minors
Lawyers vis-a-vis clients
Therapists vis-a-vis their clients
That’s fairly simple to understand , isn’t it?
“It’ll just make all these useless arguments actually mean something.”
Right. It’s useless to argue about abortion until after Roe v Wade is overturned. That makes so much fucking sense I think I’m going to shoot myself.
“This is an argument for the discontinuance of abortion, not its legalization…”
Wrong. Keeping abortion legal means women have a choice. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of their choices, whether it’s the decision to have sex in the first place, or the decision about carrying a pregnancy to term or not. Women should have access to all the options, all the information and the counseling they should need or want as they make their decision. Ultimately, however, it’s their decision and how they handle it is up to them.
Certainly the number of deaths due to abortion will only go up if abortion is made illegal. The responsible decision, on that front, is to keep abortion legal.
As for the emotional consequences of having an abortion, as I’ve said, women should be entitled to all the information and counseling they need and require both before and after their decision, whether they decide to keep their baby or not. They should know that they aren’t alone in their choices. But, ultimately, again, I’d err on the side of giving them the responsibility of making a choice, as opposed to taking that choice away all together.
And it isn’t like carrying a pregnancy to term doesn’t come with it’s own emotional and physical stresses that can have seriously negative consequences on the life of a mother and child. Do pro-life supporters take personal responsibility for every child born out of wedlock into poverty and despair? For every mother who slips into depression wondering how she’s ever going to raise a child on her own? I doubt it.
So no one on the right is advocating that women who get abortions should be jailed.
And here we go. Classic Fafaroo with his classic strawman arguments. Claire McCaskill accused Sarah Palin and John McCain of advocating that women who get abortions as a result of being raped go to jail, not “the right.” She said specificall, “This is a ticket that wants to put women in prison for having an abortion after they have been raped.”
“This is a ticket that wants to put women in prison for having an abortion after they have been raped”.
Well, both McCain and Palin believe that abortion is murder; in that context, why WOULDN’T they want to “put women in prison for having an abortion after they have been raped”?
“Doctors profit from performing abortions”.
That’s a pretty weak argument for only criminally punishing doctors who perform abortions, but not the women who have them; using that same logic, if two people rob a bank and (for whatever reason) one of the robbers lets the other one keep all the loot, the former individual shouldn’t go to jail for helping to rob the bank.
rotter, in 2006 Planned Parenthood performed almost 300,000 abortions (289,650) and took in $112 million more than it spent — so there’s a pretty good financial incentive, if you’re looking for one.
Here’s my question, though: At what point does the fetus become “human enough” to qualify for human rights, such as the right to not be killed, and when do those rights supersede the mother’s right to destroy that fetus?
Yes, I’m specifically saying “destroy the fetus.” As proven in the “born alive” law Obama fought in Illinois, simply removing the fetus from the mother (ending her pregnancy) is not sufficient; the fetus must die as well. Under the law Obama championed, fetuses that somehow survive the abortion process are to be left alone, untreated, to eventually die.
We already have a working definition of life and death — brain activity, of a certain level. Why not apply that to the beginning of life, as well as the end?
Oh, and folks here have already touched upon my question for the pro-life crowd that they don’t wanna think about — “if you could make abortion illegal, what would be the penalties, and who would you punish?” They like talking about THAT about as much as you want to craft a definition of “life” and weighing just when it applies.
J.
…and Oliver should appreciate this discussion, because it gets him off the hook for being caught putting words in other people’s mouths, and then condemning them for what they never said…
J.
“And here we go. Classic Fafaroo with his classic strawman arguments.”
Whatever you say, Jay. How about this:
So no one on this ticket is advocating that women who get abortions should be jailed. What this ticket is advocating is that abortion should be illegal which would, of course, drive abortion underground increasing the likelihood that the procedures will be unsafe and unsound. So the right isn’t advocating that women be jailed. They’re just advocating policies that would put the lives of vulnerable women at serious medical risk.
Women certainly have nothing to fear from Palin, McCain and the right.
Feel better now?
Nowhere in the examples Oliver cites does it ever state throwing a woman in jail for having an abortion.
Granted, but here’s the question. Why? If abortion were illegal, wouldn’t a woman having an abortion be breaking the law?
But this just makes their arguments a shambles. They’re saying abortion is murder, and that means it’s premediated, first degree murder, but they don’t want the person who commits the “murder”, who hires the people who do the “murder”, to receive any punishment. And of course these same people often support capital punishment for murder, except in this one case. Obviously they do this because it’s not politically palatable to do what their values, if applied honestly, demand.
THANK YOU!
I think they would say that it’s the doctor who is ultimately performing the “murder” since without the doctor’s help, the woman probably wouldn’t be able to do it herself.
However, the woman would be soliciting murder in this case, and that’s a crime.
We already have a working definition of life and death — brain activity, of a certain level.
And even the pro-life crowd opposes this.
So, then, Zython, what is YOUR answer to the abortion question? If I were to wave a magic wand and say that whatever YOU say will suddenly become the law of the land governing abortion, what would it be?
Don’t be afraid. Put your opinion forth. It’s only a LITTLE scarier than just shitting all over other people’s arguments without offering your own…
J.
“If I were to wave a magic wand and say that whatever YOU say will suddenly become the law of the land governing abortion, what would it be?”
Jay Tea, you do understand that each state already has a law or laws governing abortion, right? You do understand that the states write these laws within the limitations laid out by the Supreme Court, right?
As I understand it, Roe v Wade, set viability as the outer limit for legal abortions with viability defined as 24-28 weeks, making exceptions for those cases in which a mother’s health is at risk.
All that seems fine to me. Here’s a scary question for you: Why are you pretending to be ignorant of the basic facts of this issue?
discussed how his war injuries make it extremely difficult and painful for him to use keyboards.
But not the cellphone or the Blackberry? (The reason he can’t use a cellphone is because his campaign took it away from him.)
I got two words for McCain’s “war injuries” that prevent him from using a keyboard: Stephen Hawking.
We know John is stuck in the 19th century, but how does he remain unaware that computers have liberated any number of people who have physical limitations far greater than his? Are you aware that there are dozens of adapations for computers that allow complete quadraplegics LIKE MY COUSIN to use computers? Apparently not. You should try asking The Google about that. Google is what we in the modern world call a “search engine.”
Good thing his “war injuries” didn’t prevent him from flying jets after his release, because as you know, jets are a lot easier to operate than computers, and don’t require any degree of dexterity.
My stance on abortion is simple:
What this ticket is advocating is that abortion should be illegal
They are?
But not the cellphone or the Blackberry?
Right, because we know that typing away at a keyboard is the same thing as pressing a fucking button to answer a phone or pressing a scroll wheel to read an email on a Blackberry. Cripes, what a maroon.
I got two words for McCain’s “war injuries” that prevent him from using a keyboard: Stephen Hawking.
You do realize that Stephen Hawking cannot work without a computer so that’s a stupid comparison, but I have to consider the source.
We know John is stuck in the 19th century, but how does he remain unaware that computers have liberated any number of people who have physical limitations far greater than his?
In what way does “he remain unaware?”
Good thing his “war injuries” didn’t prevent him from flying jets after his release, because as you know, jets are a lot easier to operate than computers, and don’t require any degree of dexterity.
So what you’re saying is that you can ride your mountain bike now the same way you did in 1978. Is that right? Let me guess. He-Man Piano Mover can still probably show Lance Armstrong a thing or too right? I keep forgetting what a tough guy you are.
Or are you that obtuse not to able to figure out that war injuries sustained in 1971 could be far more debilitating 30 years later?
Mine certainly are — which is they have been sending me a disability check my whole life since my discharge …
I keep forgetting what a tough guy you are.
Come out to the coast, we’ll have a few laughs, and then we’ll go for a bike ride, and I’ll be happy to show you.
Assuming, of course, that your war injuries from Iraq don’t prevent you from riding a bike.
Or are you that obtuse not to able to figure out that war injuries sustained in 1971 could be far more debilitating 30 years later?
So he is MORE disabled than Stephen Hawking, who, as you pointed out, can’t work without a computer? Are you sure he is up to the job of being president, with all the intellectual and physical limitations you have identified?
“They are?”
How cute. Jay’s playing stupid again.
Pick either Jay, that’s not playing.
So he is MORE disabled than Stephen Hawking, who, as you pointed out, can’t work without a computer? Are you sure he is up to the job of being president, with all the intellectual and physical limitations you have identified?
You’re missing the point, but that’s not unusual. I’d like to know in what book does it say that a prerequisite for being President is the ability to sit around sending out emails all day. And let’s remember that the people shrieking “LIAR!” every other second as part of their new campaign strategy are lying themselves when they say that McCain “doesn’t know how” to send email or use a computer.
How cute. Jay’s playing stupid again.
Nah. You’re just writing bogus shit. As usual.
fafaroo: “How cute. Jay’s playing stupid again.”
Jay: “Nah.”
Jay’s not playing stupid. He is stupid.
They are not fighting to overturn Roe vs. Wade because of States’ rights. They are doing it to ban abortions, even in the case of rape and incest with Palin.
“Nah. You’re just writing bogus shit. As usual.”
So, Jay, is it your understanding that Palin and McCain want to keep abortion legal? Yes or no.
I’d like to know in what book does it say that a prerequisite for being President is the ability to sit around sending out emails all day.
I don’t do every job in my company. BUT I SURE AS HELL KNOW WHAT THOSE JOBS ARE AND HOW THEY ARE DONE.
You’re saying this guy does not need to know how to spell, or read, or wipe his ass, because he has “people” for that.
You have switched from his injuries preventing his use of the computer, a bogus argument since extremely handicapped people can do so, to saying he doesn’t NEED to.
When you settle on your reason for saying this guy does not need to be able to use the most universal information technology at a third grade level, please elucidate.
Let’s not forget K-Lo is the EDITOR at National Review. And she couldn’t construct a coherent sentence with a building permit.