Seven Simple Questions for Republicans Abandoning Akin

Politics, that ever-fascinating spectacle which illustrates man’s (or one group’s) obsession to impose his/their will over the masses by shaping public policy has stolen the spotlight once again. In the last week, Republican Missouri Representative Todd Akin, who has been engaged in typically brutal (by contemporary standards) campaign to unseat the district’s sitting Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, has been the target of more slings and arrows than a Star Trek “redshirt” in the Hunger Games.

Since his now-infamous remarks about “legitimate rape,” calls have been coming from every nook and cranny of the political world for Akin to drop out of the race. While granted, his remark that women’s bodies have some heretofore unknown mechanism which prevents pregnancies resulting from rape smacks of the complex imaginings of a 3rd-grader who has an unparalleled insight into the nature of cooties, he has every right to speak his mind…or what passes for such. And although I do agree that the cheapening of human life exemplified by the death culture that both abortion and the death penalty should be abolished, I cannot help but bear witness and testify against how I see the Republican Party throwing one of their own under the bus to avoid losing power.

I also cannot help but wonder the obvious; whether Akin’s remarks are a reflection of similar beliefs—of some variation thereof—held by the majority of Republicans. After all, their party’s ideological anti-abortion fetish seems to take priority over other, more pressing issues relevant to the American people; one of the very first bills passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R.3.PCS). So as the Republican Party look for the perfect spot on the back of Akin to drive it’s knife, I find myself thinking about a great many things related to this issue.

In the current issue of The New Yorker (August 20, 2012), writer Amy Davidson piece, “Seven Simple Questions for Republicans Abandoning Akin” reflects many of my own questions surrounding the issue.

I’ve taken the liberty of reprinting the thought-provoking piece here.

What are Republicans renouncing when they run from Todd Akin? Akin, the G.O.P.’s candidate for Senate in Missouri—he had been leading in the polls—said in an interview yesterday that “the female body” had a mystery mechanism that prevented pregnancy in the case of a “legitimate rape.” (The full, awful details are in an earlier post.) He doesn’t seem to have expected the anger this occasioned; by the end of the night he had apologized, and, on Monday, he was roundly abandoned by Republicans from Mitt Romney to Scott Walker. (He was also, less surprisingly, denounced by Democrats, including President Obama, who said, “Rape is rape.”) John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told him that he wouldn’t be getting the five million that the Party had planned to spend on his race, the Washington Post reported, and others pushed him to drop out. Akin, though, isn’t making it easy, telling Mike Huckabee, “I’m not a quitter.”

And this shouldn’t be too easy for the G.O.P.—given that the actual policy positions, if not medical knowledge, of many in the Party are quite close to Akin’s. This is true of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate. So here’s a test: Are you a Republican politician who would desperately like to distance yourself from Akin? Answer these seven simple questions first.

1. You’ve said that Congressman Akin’s remarks offended you. Can you explain, in your own words, what about them offended you? Was it just that he was wrong about how conception works, or do you see more problems in his statement? Please be specific; vague references to “empathy” don’t count.

2. Congressman Akin used the phrase “legitimate rape.” If you haven’t addressed that in question No. 1, can you do so now? Is it a phrase that you would use, or countenance, or one that you would object to? Also, Akin co-sponsored legislation changing a statutory reference to “rape” to “forcible rape.” Is that a bill you voted for, or would?

3. Do you support access to abortion for victims of rape? Have you ever voted on or introduced legislation, or signed a pledge, addressing that point? Would you require any qualifications—for example, would there need to be a criminal conviction first? Do you support access to abortion for anyone besides rape victims?

4. How about emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill? A University of California Study estimated that, in 1998, twenty-five thousand women became pregnant as the result of rape, and that twenty-two thousand of those could potentially have been prevented with emergency contraception. Would you classify this as abortion? Should all women, whatever their circumstances, have access to the morning-after pill? And should health insurance cover non-emergency contraception?

5. Congressman Akin is an educated man. Do you think this incident shows that there are shortcomings in sex education and scientific literacy in America? Would you support increased sex education? And could organizations like Planned Parenthood have a role to play there?

6. You and your colleagues have called on Akin to withdraw from the Senate race against Claire McCaskill. Why? Do you think that he is unfit to serve, or do you just think that he will lose?

7. Can you talk about what you’ve done in your political career to help victims of sexual violence? Have you listened to those women’s—and men’s, and children’s—stories?

Reprinted from The New Yorker (August 20, 2012)

The fact that I used Davidson's piece does in no way mean to imply that I am pro-abortion. As I stated before, I believe in the logical consistency of "pro-life;" both abortion and the death penalty should be abolished.
I am merely using this piece to illustrate how the Republicans can tree themselves by adhering to ideological beliefs rather than beliefs which reflect critical thinking...just as the Democrats do so themselves on the issue of gay marriage and "gender issues" (See: "The Politicization of Gender In America" for example)
I'm just wondering when will politicians from both parties will step away from their respective ideological stances and learn to govern based not on emotions, party allegiance, or ideology but on reason alone...?

Read More

The Politicization of Gender In America

I was recently motivated by a reader (thank you MLJ1219) to write about an issue that I have touched on on previous occasions, but have failed to articulate with any level of explicit understanding. It’s one of those issues which female readers of Beyond The Political Spectrum are not going to agree with me on, which is fine.
Recently, I posted a couple recent issues in the news—in addition to past postings—regarding the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, especially in this election year (Ex: "Contraception: It's Easier Than You Think," "Issues In The News (For Dummies!)," and "Contraception As A Political Issue...Does This Make Too Much Sense? (Part 2)").
In retrospect, I can see why some readers would have thought that I side with the Democrats on most women-related issues, seeing as how most of what said or indicated in previous posts seemed to reflect defending women’ rights on various issues.
However, a bit of clarification is in order. I feel compelled on this 40th anniversary of the Federal Title IX legislation to state that what I was attempting to showcase previously was the absurdity of gender-specific issues as campaign issues which at a time when jobs, the economy, and national security should take primary focus. I don’t defend issues such as abortion and contraception in and of themselves. What I object to is the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, which both parties—the Democrats in particular—are guilty of. To this point, conservatives—although in error to focus on individual decisions such as abortion as a practice (as well as other side issues) to be regulated by government—are right to criticize how Democrats are quick to pander to the emotionally volatile concerns of women among the voting electorate.
Take the recent debate surrounding the reauthorization of the 18-year-old anti-domestic violence law known as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994 the law, which among other things makes “crimes of violence motivated by the victim's gender" a federal civil rights violation, has been reauthorized on 2 previous occasions, with little fanfare. However, this year renewal of the bill faces opposition from conservative Republicans in the Senate due to added provisions which extended recognition, protections, and availability of resources (allocated in the initial bill) to cover Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans as well as illegal immigrants.
Democrats have smeared the Republicans’ opposition of the bill’s renewal to the “War on Women” they accuse the Republicans of engaging in as they erroneously focus on issues of reproduction and sexuality as campaign issues. They have, to some limited success, framed the Republicans’ effort to block passage of the reauthorization proposal as part of a greater conservative strategy against women, when it fact they are only opposed to the protections which women already benefit from extended to other groups, most of which are indeed questionable given their lack of legal total legal recognition.
Logic dictates that any federal law ostensibly created to protect women against domestic violence simply follow its inherent mandate. The addition of gay partners to this bill smacks of partisan one-upsmanship in using a female issue to gain political advantage, stretching the law’s initial credibility as a protection against, and recognition of male-on-female domestic violence. Furthermore, adding protections against battered female illegal immigrants is almost laughable; doing so validates the presence of illegal immigrants in a way which seems to focus on one particular crime—violence against female partners—while ignoring the larger issue of their illegal presence on American soil (yes, it’s acknowledged that previous versions the VAWA protected female immigrants from abusive spouses, but only insofar as pertains to their legal opportunity to obtain permanent immigration status based on the claim of abuse; it doesn’t impact the overall argument).
Additionally, there is more than enough law at the state and local levels which protect women against abusive partners. In fact, given the disproportionate way in which women are not only protected, but somewhat elevated in aspects of treatment in our contemporary culture, politicizing gender only further empowers women…at the expense of men. Take the issue of reproductive rights in America.
Despite the perception by many that there is an assault on women’s reproductive rights, women in a sense, have the overwhelming amount authority when it comes to deciding establishing the general rights and guidelines of parenthood (I can attest to this personally, see “Women Reproductive Rights...and Wrongs!”). Under the current socioeconomic and legal dynamic, women decide whether to become parents, not men. I know that presumes that men have no responsibility in the process, but strictly speaking, it is her body. A woman can opt to decide to have unprotected sex, knowing full well that under most normal circumstances, pregnancy can be the result. If the woman doesn’t want to actually have a baby, she has the right to invoke a type of mulligan...a do-over in the form of the right to either abort the baby, or to put it up for adoption (sorry to shatter the illusion, but despite laws on the record books that gives a biological father say-so in cases where a mother wants to put a baby up for adoption despite his objections, the level of stipulations and statutory requirements makes a father taking presumptive automatic custody renders this an unrealistic reality). In matter of abortion, the man has no input, and—for all intents and purposes—in matter of adoption he has very little.
On the other hand, the woman also chooses to whether or not to impose parenthood on a male, and has the ability to leverage the power of the state to compel him to financially contribute to a child’s upbringing in the form of pursing child support. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, it’s pretty much Tough ****. A man who doesn’t want to be a father is a “deadbeat dad” or “sperm donor,” and will be pursued with the conviction of hunting down Al Queda, while a woman who doesn’t want to be a mother has the benefit of the state protection of her rights. And of these men, more than a few of wouldn’t even have criminal records if not for an otherwise lackadaisical sense of priorities, while for mothers, only the most extreme cases of neglect would qualify as “criminal.”
And should I have to even mention how typically weighted proceedings, judgments, and (conditions of) “settlements” are in favor in women in family and divorce court? Toss in the subjective judgment by wife seeking divorce of “mental abuse” (or domestic abuse) and you get a system which makes the woman’s word in such legal proceedings beyond reproach (and no, I’m not speaking of actual cases of domestic violence where there is a tangible trail of evidence and history of such. I am speaking of the way in which many women allege such “abuse” when submitting a laundry list of accusations as reasons for a judge to rule against a man in impending divorce proceedings). The reason this happens is because in this particular arena of jurisprudence, “the standard of evidence (known as "preponderance of the evidence") is the lowest allowed by law,” and family court hearings are often heard by a panel of commissioners…and often “with no witnesses beyond the parties themselves” in order save time and lower strains on this area of the judicial system. (See: “Ripped Apart”).
To further emphasize this point of this judicial bias which is tilted in favor of women, consider the following:

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a "women and the law" class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner's courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. "She ruled against every single man," Rolfe recalls, "and two of them were unopposed."

In many cases, the accusation of abuse is the marital equivalent of a rape accusation without an actual rape having taken place…an occurrence which happens more than we’d like to think, thanks to (you guessed it) the socio-political power we give to a woman’s sexuality. The upshot is that considering how much our society—by way of our institutions, if not our thinking—have empowered women at the expense of men, politicizing gender-related issues is not only unnecessary, it’s another example of more than political pandering to particular demographics which politicians from the two main political party engage in…at the expense the general voting electorate. In the case of politicizing gender issues, it’s an obvious appeal by the Democrats to women…at the expense—in many respects—to men. Men have no reproductive rights, no male-issue-specific Washington lobby, and can be forced to pay child support—even in some cases where he is not the biological father. Women have far more advantages in seeking court-based redress in matter of marital discord, parenting rights, and general paternity. As one reader put it so well, “women have the upper hand. When men had the upper hand, it was called ‘oppression.’ Now that women have the upper hand, it’s called ‘equality.’”

Read More

Contraception As A Political Issue...Does This Make Too Much Sense?

Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely for human beings, especially adults having a sense of self-control and discipline when it comes to sexual behavior. However, the reality is that we live in a sexually-obsessed society which helps influence weaker wills with less-than-moral practices in regards to human sexuality. To be blunt, we often allow our hormones, emotions, and cultural mores--distorted though they are--to dictate our sexual behavior.
For some, particularly those from the lower socioeconomic strata of our society, the results can be a [potentially] financial burden for families, as well as society as a whole.
The recent political dust-up regarding the War on Women (reproductive rights) and the issue of contraception is a lot simpler to address and resolve; all it takes is the application of a little reason. Unfortunately, reason is rarely found in either politics or human sexuality. Still, I found a rather insightful Facebook graphic which conveys the simplicity of addressing the issue of contraception, abortion, etc. The only thing needed is for all sides--Republican, Democrats, Evangelicals, women, and men--to put the simplicity of reason into practice. Observe:

Read More

Female Reproductive Rights…and Wrongs (or “Lunacy Made Easy”)

A week ago today (Sunday) during church services in Wichita, Kansas, a church usher was shot dead. In this particular case and as church ushers go, this usher’s professional notoriety was a stark contrast to the relative anonymity of church ushers in general. The usher killed was Dr. George Tiller, a family man by reputation, and a medical doctor by profession. To the point, Tiller was an abortion services provider—late-term abortion specifically—and as such, was no stranger to being a public target for both religious and ideological-based animus.
In 1986, Tiller’s clinic was firebombed. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion protester. And earlier this year, he requested the FBI to investigate instances of vandalism at the clinic, including sabotage of the facility’s video surveillance system. One can only suspect as to the motivations behind someone willing to provide such a service that evokes such militant hostility towards its providers, and so politically and socially polarizing to nation at large.

Dr. George Tiller was shot to death during a church service last Sunday

This is not an easy subject for me to explore. Back in the 2002, married for only 6 months, I was going through a rather sour divorce; we were just too different. I was brought up (at least during the first 13 or so years) under a household of limited resources, but structure, rules, corporal punishment, and parents who were authority figures first, and “friends” second. That was the proper way of raising children as far as I was concerned. Her childhood was one educated parents, a stern disciplined father, and liberal understanding mother, material excesses, no spankings, and of children spoiled with things. As far as she believed, that was the way of raising children to be productive citizens. At the same time we were going through divorce, she became pregnant, already a mother of 2 boys from a previous marriage (something neither of us expected since she had already undergone a tubal ligation). She has wanted a girl, but that was not the design of fate. I told her that it was my wish that she would carry the child to term, and that I would take custody of it and go my separate way. She pleaded with me not to do so (in the even that it was a girl), but I was adamant about my wishes; I had no intention of allowing a child of mine to grow up around her unrelenting hedonistic ways which included marijuana smoking. But because of my intent and her questioning my ability to raise a child, she aborted it; as a man who couldn’t use the phrase, “It’s my body and I can do with it as I wish,” I had no say-so in the matter.
As you can imagine, it would be a little hard for anyone who’s gone through such an experience to be objective. But my personal view of life gives me a certain level of objectivity on the issue of abortion…all life is sacred, and should be protected. As far as I am concerned, Providence alone brought us here, and it alone should be allowed to remove us…not some structured system of jurisprudence that seeks to play God, and certainly not someone who gets paid to terminate life under the color of “medicine.” Even more than a philosophical basis, abortion is wrong is the sense that it is patently unfair to the silent participant in reproductive issues, namely men.
In my case, if my ex-wife had made the decision to keep the child—whether I wanted her to or not—I would have been stuck with the consequences. Based on what she alone would choose to do with a gestating child, I could have been forced to pay child support for a child I did not want, or standing by idly, with no legal or other recourse, watch her remove something which I helped create from existence. Throughout America, most men are faced with similar consequences borne of similar situations. The last time I checked, women could not unilaterally decide to bring a child into the world sans the man’s participation, no matter how much will or prayer they exert toward the endeavor. Being the case, why should they unilaterally decide to what they want to do with the child? Although men help create children, they have come to have absolutely no say-so in their birthing, except evidently when it comes to killing abortion professionals.
And oddly enough fervent anti-abortion crusaders, those who purport to champion the cause the “rights of the innocent” and all things “Christian,” are willing to resort to murder to prevent the “murder” of the unborn. I have seen and read the blogs and websites within the conservative sphere of ideological thought where comments frame the murder of Tiller as some form of divine retribution, Karma, or some such. The lack of philosophical consistency notwithstanding, I find it odd that these same would-be “Christian” crusaders are not forming a line to adopt any children that would be spared the fate of all unwanted unborn (and while in a better world it would be nice to see all undesired children carried to term and raised in proper nourishing environments by way of adoption or foster care, the reality is given the overabundance of children available for adoption, adoption’s prohibitively costly expense, and the already overburdened and under-funded foster care system, advocates of abortion do not entirely have a meritless position).
Abortion is not an easy subject for anyone who harbors intense passions to discuss, but discussion is exactly what is lacking. The airwaves are brimming with rants, soliloquies, and worthless opinions about how either un-Biblical or immoral abortion is, or how much it is necessary to protect a “woman’s right” to be able to decide to terminate and unwanted pregnancy. There is no talk about how hypocritical it is one whose faith is predicated on the notion of human compassion and mercy to murder in order to express how dedicated they are to those same notions (which seems to indicate a level of self-centeredness, not selflessness). There are no policy proposals about how to deal with unwanted children who are allowed to come to term, such as the anticipated need for institutions to house the parentless or increased funding for foster care (and I’m sure there would be blabber about how government shouldn’t be in the business of raising children or questions of where do we get the funds to the increase in foster care need?). There is no talk about how to foster better parenting among parents who do decide to carry and bear their children (no talk of establishing a stable network or support group not subject to dissolution due to lack of funding). And—as previously hinted—there are not nearly enough people willing (or able) to adopt any children allowed to live, especially in a troubled economy where families are stretched financially thing as it is (come now Christians, where is the faith to feed the Multitudes?), so where are the propositions from the self-righteous?
It’s obvious that the lack of dialogue indicates a lack of ideas on the issue. And given the insanity of many aspects of the child support system (jailing biological fathers who can’t/do not pay child support…hard to pay when you’re in jail/prison; creating felons for the offense…which doesn’t make them any more employable; and suspending any licenses they may have…again, which doesn’t help them any toward paying their obligations) any ideas in regards to creating a remedy would probably be just as "logical" or “effective” (yes defenders of the child-support system, that is sarcasm).
Of a certainty, the policies regarding reproductive issues are polarizing, and tend to spur much in the way of ideological rhetoric…but that’s all that comes of them. Women are made to be tokens of ideology, men are emasculated from a lack of say-so, and human life stripped of its humanity; it’s reduced to simple decision to be made rather than a sacred gift to be appreciated. Sides are chosen and only token gestures are made in regards solutions.
For individuals like myself, there should be a system of rules and laws in place which gives us some input into whether or not we choose to be parents. I’m sure to make enemies with this suggestion, but perhaps pregnant women should be made to obtain a waver from the father in order to get an abortion--just like in adoption--with the stipulation that the father WILL be an active participant in the child’s life (and not just in a financial obligatory sense), or even be willing to take full custody of the child.
Men who father children by women of limited means, and who have a legitimate level of concern about their child’s well-being should also be given the option of deciding to have the child placed in the custody of some (other) legal custodian, or into forcibly removed in lieu of adoption.
Those wishing to see all unborn children spared the machinations of the abortionists (most notably Christian Conservatives) had better be prepared to remove the phrase “fiscal restraint” from their ideological lexicon, as it will no doubt take a great deal of money to deal with the infusion of unwanted children into a welfare bureaucracy that many are already calling for a reduction of.
Most obvious, individuals need to learn and adopt the concept of foresight…learning to anticipate the consequences of their actions. We need to look beyond our hedonistic desires for momentary pleasure and measure the repercussions they have for ourselves and the lives that may result from them. The decision to eradicate a life should not be made with the same abandon as the decision to create one, not without consideration of whether or not we are willing to be adults and accept the consequences of our actions. And in accepting consequences, learning the lessons that restraint can teach us about how to deal with ourselves and each other.
Insofar as "punishing" those who would take a human life, that particular endeavor should be left up to whatever system of justice the universe was designed to mete out, in the way that it was designed to do so, not us.

Read More