Whats up with the Repigs sudden interest in privacy?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/1141488,CST-NWS-stein03.article

Palin, religious right rediscover pregnancy as a personal matter

September 3, 2008

BY NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist

Opening shot...

Despite all the youngsters cheerily posting humiliating photos of themselves on the Web, and despite the bloggers sending sparks from the deepest smithies of their souls flying across cyberspace, forging the uncreated consciousness of our race, there is still, for the moment, a right to privacy in this country.

I cannot, as much as I might like to, snatch away your diary and print the more embarrassing parts in the newspaper for no reason whatsoever other than pure titillation. You'd sue and win.

Nor can I prevent a woman from having an abortion, and for the very same reason. The right to privacy is what the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rests upon, not that abortion is good or bad, but that it involves a realm so personal that it should not be trodden upon by the state.

The religious right has always rejected this. To them, it is not your body, not your decision, but God's, and He has made it for you, long ago, and now works through His Chosen Minions, who have a perfect right -- literally a God-given right -- to stand outside abortion clinics and try to invade the privacy of anyone making moral choices different from their own.

This week the religious right, with crashing swiftness, has rediscovered privacy, at least when it comes to the pregnancy of newly named Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's unwed 17-year-old daughter, Bristol.

"We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy," said Palin and her husband, Todd, in a joint statement.

Why sure. Of course we will. That is the decent thing to do. But is it too much to ask that Palin -- and John McCain, and all those so moral that they are overflowing with morality and need to impose a little of their excess morality upon everyone else -- that they in turn respect OUR daughters' privacy and let them work out THEIR own personal and gynecological lives as THEY see fit? Apparently it is.

[Demeter]

1. OUTSTANDING!

This hits the Fundies and Anti-Choice right where they live.

[TahitiNut]

2. Yup.... just what I've been saying all along.

Their claims of a "right to privacy" are sheer hypocrisy when they DENY the very same right to the wombs of all women. Fuck her and the whores she rides in on!

[chill_wind]

3. Wait til Obama is elected and they suddenly begin to care about FISA,

The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act and a whole other unholy host of proto-fascist legislationTHEY cheered and lauded under Bush (with more than a little help from select lapdog Dems....)

WAIT and watch!

K & R

[Stellabella]

4. Exactly.

It's the privacy, stupid!

The whole thing of pro-choice, anti-choice isn't very accurate. It's pro-privacy, and anti-privacy. I wish we could recast it that way.

[DCKit]

5. I wouldn't mind having a bit of privacy restored, despite the fact that I lack a womb.

Yes, I agree: With a Democratic President and a majority in both Houses of Congress, the outcry against these undue and overreaching powers will become deafening. I say "make 'em sweat."

[FatDave]

6. They're only interested in their own privacy.

We little people, we don't deserve any. 'Twas ever thus.