Tea Party and Christian Right's Sneaky Anti-Abortion Crusade

[MountainLaurel]

The U.S. is facing resurgence in the war against a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Congress contained the Bush administration’s more virulent anti-abortion efforts, especially after the 2006 election. Since Obama’s election and the Democrats takeover of Congress, abortion has been a hostage to political horse-trading as evident in the Stupak compromise restricting abortion from insurance coverage that finally got the health reform legislation passed.

Unfortunately, as national media attention has moved on to other matters, the battle over abortion and other culture-war issues has shifted from the Congress to state legislatures. Across the country, especially in what are known as red states, the Christian right has moved stealthily, yet aggressively, to further tighten restrictions on “legal” abortions. These efforts have been remarkably successful, likely foreshadowing a major campaign against Roe at both the federal and state levels following a likely strong showing by rightwing Republicans in the 2010 Congressional elections.

This new anti-abortion movement is a continuation of the old religious war against a woman’s right to choose and for sexual freedom, but with some important new twists. The domestic and foreign policy crises Obama inherited from the Bush administration, combined with Obama’s own compromises, have provided a great cover for a refocused anti-abortion movement. The just-say-No Republican party, together with the inflammatory Tea-Party movement, has refocused the mainstream media away from abortion and other cultural issues to “big” government, the national debt and immigration.

The anti-abortion warriors have used this cover to wage campaigns requiring women considering an abortion to undergo an ultrasound visualization of the fetus, banning abortion coverage in the state employees’ health plan and restricting public funding of abortion under the new health-insurance exchanges. In addition, they are employing provocative public media campaigns like the billboards in Georgia targeting African-Americans (i.e., black babies as an “endangered species”) and slick posters on the New York City subways (i.e., “abortion changes you”) to push a more sophisticated anti-abortion message.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147347/the_tea_party_and_christian_right%27s_sneaky_anti-abortion_crusade?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternettop_stories

[TexanRudeBoy]

1. The Tea Party isn't a monolith

anymore than the "left" or "right" is. There are many factions, some of which (like most libertarians) who fully support a woman's right to her own body. I know its easier for lazy minds to think in terms of black and white, but you'd be surprised how many would actually agree with you on MANY issues.

[musette_sf]

2. "most libertarians"?

Roe v Wade codified female citizens' rights to privacy in reproductive health care access on a FEDERAL level.

"Most libertarians" say that they want reproductive health care rights and accesses to return to the states. Which translates to stripping female citizens of their Constitutional right to privacy, and for such right to be determined by the state of residence.

Prior to Roe, there were only FOUR states where abortion on demand was legal.

This is what the libertarians seek to return women to - the rich, and the women who live in the enlightened states, will still be able to enjoy freedom and autonomy. Everyone else will be sentenced to involuntary servitude for an unwanted pregnancy.

Ironically, I have been calling libertarian philosophy "monolithic" for many years now. So not only are you incorrect on "libertarians... who fully support a woman's right to her own body", but you are also projecting the shortcomings of the teabaggers and the libertarians onto progressives. Progressives are anything BUT monolithic. And yes, the teabaggers ARE monolithic, as well as illogical.

[uppityperson]

3. !

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

5. have already read Rothbard, Hoppe, Hayek, Friedman,

etc etc etc etc etc

Problem with you libertarians, is that you equate "understanding" with "complete agreement".

It's a familiar complaint from libertarians - any disagreement with libertarian philosophy is answered with "well, you just don't UNDERSTAND it". I've debated - or attempted to debate, I should say - with libertarians up to the level of Lew Rockwell contributors, and to a man (they're usually men), anyone who does not agree with libertarianism just doesn't "understand" it.

It's a cheap tactic, and a cheaper insult, to denigrate someone's intellectual capacity because s/he doesn't AGREE with you.

As for a woman's right to her own body, suggest that instead of hurling cheap insults at me, you take that up with Dr. Paul The Elder. I'm sure you know his position, which is as I set forth in my original reply to you.

Oh yeah, and get back to me on where that successful libertarian paradise is, where libertarian principles have created a Utopian society. I'm thinking Somalia is a good example of a libertarian nation.