Should the Republican Party platform be modified to cater to women’s reproductive rights?
I have written several scathing posts about my own Republican Party and now, to be fair and balanced, I will consider our donkey friends, the Democrats. (I mean no disrespect by the label, just trying to gain readership from those who enjoy creative literary execution.) Gallup reports that women are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans (Gallup Article). It also known that 55% of women voters turned out for President Obama in the last election, a critical component of his victory (Huffington Post Article). The same Huffington Post article cites quotes from illustrious and revered advocates for the somewhat misunderstood female species, stating that they voted for the Democrat because of the following:“Romney seemed to struggle to connect with women as a result of the GOP’s escalating efforts to limit women’s reproductive rights and a series of controversial comments from Republicans about rape, birth control and abortion.”
Intriguing. Apparently following politics for several hours a day is insufficient to pick up on the nuances of the backward chauvinist pig that we selected as our candidate for president. (Please note the sarcasm. Get used to it.) I must have been asleep when NPR ran their story on how Romney refused to hire women when he was Governor and made comments about them belonging barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oh wait, I wasn’t asleep; he never said anything that was the slightest bit offensive to the 99.9% of reasonable women that live in this country. Binders full of women? Awkward perhaps but he was trying to describe how conscientious he had been to ensure that women were fairly represented in his cabinet. Anyone who made anything else of it needs to be institutionalized until they can get over their mania. Romney was reasonable, balanced, and fair in his articulation and I believe in his heart he is a decent and equitable guy. The gender gap in this last election wasn’t his fault nor can it be blamed entirely on two other Republican candidates who said some pretty ignorant things that clearly weren’t representative of the party.
So why the gap? Why does Gallup report that 41% of women are Democrats while only 25% are Republicans? The answer is easy: clever marketing and pandering. Plain and simple. Sure, a fair number of women will never be Republican nor vote for the party because their views on moral issues, limited government, and the sanctity of life are clearly incompatible with our party. In a similar vein, 100% of alcoholics opposed prohibition—everybody will not agree on everything. You might wonder then, is the nebulous issue “reproductive rights” responsible for the gap in female membership in the Republican Party? I suspect that it is a large factor and one that is completely unavoidable.
I realize that this blog has been harping for pragmatism and reason in politics—and it will continue to do so. I will not avoid tackling the hard issues, however, so get ready for a duzy of a rant: Republicans are losing some women voters because they choose to live promiscuous lives, mothering children they don’t want and refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Sure, the guy deserves equal blame and should share an equal burden but consider how unfair it is that both the man and woman, in most cases (rape excluded) make the choice to parent a child but the woman has the only say in whether the baby lives. Fair? No. Were the reproductive rights of the woman violated when she conceived the baby? No. Were the man’s rights violated in the act? No. How about when the time came for the abortion and the woman exercised her “right to choose” dispatching the baby decisively 18 weeks after its life began? It had a little heart working, it had mother’s chin and father’s brow but without even consulting the dad she walked into a clinic and had the insidious tumor removed from her stomach before it could become the policeman or doctor or lawyer—or construction worker at minimum wage. Before it could achieve and love and fail and suffer and cry and laugh—and live. In this example were the woman’s reproductive rights trampled? No, she in her selfish narcissism, decided that the world should be deprived of the child—not to mention her partner who had no say in the matter. It was his rights that were ignored. But nobody speaks for him.
Yes, Republicans are saddened about the loss of innocent lives due to the crime of abortion. Yes, I said crime. As of the latest figures (http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts) in 2005, 1.2 million babies were killed in the U.S. and since 1973 when abortion was legalized; over 50 million children have been aborted. That’s about the same as the total number of deaths attributed to World War II. That Great War that spread death and destruction around the globe killed the same amount of lives that have been electively destroyed over the last 39 years—an absolute travesty; and one that we will pay for someday when a moral, just, and righteous leadership controls this country.
So do women choose to be a Democrat due to reproductive rights? Some do, sure, but I contend that it is a very narrow and short-sighted decision; even if the Daily Beast is right that 40% of women have had abortions. (Daily Beast Article, I question this science however, as it assumes that every abortion is from a different woman. We know that many promiscuous ladies often have multiple abortions, some as many as eight in their lifetime.) So you ask, does the Republican Party need to develop a platform that caters to this “right to choose” myth? No. Should our party run to decriminalize murder? Not a chance. We are the party that stands for equity, life, and freedom. Stand for reproductive inequity and infanticide? Never. Not if we win nary another election.
O’Dowd
O'Dowd Politics 