Who is the 2012 Most Misogynistic Candidate? Rick Perry

9 Sep

Every election, whether it is for a local school board spot, a state governor or the White House, there are some candidates who can only be described as “out there.”  The guy running on a platform of legalizing marijuana – for medicinal and recreational use, Ralph Nader and his Green Party, and dozens of others.  What makes these candidates so “out there” is that, no matter how much money they raise or how many elections they run in, their views are wildly disparate from those that the rest of us hold.  Which means that no matter how bizarre their speeches or strange their platforms, most Americans can rest easy knowing that their chances of being elected are slim to none.

But what do you call a candidate who believes that Ohio’s so-called “Heartbeat Bill,” which will outlaw abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks of gestation, is something that should be rolled out to the rest of the country?

What do you call a candidate for President who signs a law in his home state which, were it not for the intervention of a federal judge, would force women seeking abortions to have (and pay for) sonograms and listen to the fetal heartbeat at least 24 hours prior to having their abortions?

Or  a man who wants to lead our country while forcing women who were the victims of sexual assault or incest to attest to that in writing before obtaining abortions?

This week, I have to call him Rick Perry, a man who the latest polls by ABC News and the Washington Post is in the lead to become the Republican contender in next year’s Presidential election.  Which either means that there is a lack of would be Republican candidates who care about woman or that there are more than just a few Republican voters who agree with Mr. Perry, who has been criticized for preferring to hew to an antiquated “Just Say No” style abstinence education plan in Texas, where he is Governor, rather than combat that state’s teen pregnancy rates, which have skyrocketed to become one of the highest in the country with more than 60 out of every 1,000 teenage Texan girls becoming pregnant.

What do you call Rick Perry, when he says that his abstinence only program “works” after being faced with those statistics?  Or the flock of pundits, politicians and voters who seem set on promoting his bizarre set of misogynistic values?

I’m calling it scary – what about you?

12 Responses to “Who is the 2012 Most Misogynistic Candidate? Rick Perry”

  1. L.T. September 12, 2011 at 7:12 pm #

    Very scary, indeed. Especially for those of us in Ohio, as we’re already locked in a desperate battle with our own conservative wingnuts – we don’t need a presidential candidate from another state who applauds life threatening bills such as this Heartbeat mess.

    As if the ‘Kill Women, Save 6+ Week Embryos’ law wasn’t enough on it’s own, we have the Personhood USA group collecting signatures to get a ‘personhood’ amendment onto the 2012 ballot.

    Please consider signing our petition to stop the madness and instead get the Prevention First Act passed:

    http://chn.ge/pUdwFw

  2. Arual September 17, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    I’m not sure why it’s scary to you to inform a woman before she undergoes a serious medical procedure. Shouldn’t we all know what is about to happen in our bodies? By making factual information available to woman considering abortion, we are providing her with medical information she deserves to know.

    L.T. – You call the Heartbeat Bill a life threatening bill. Whose life would this bill threaten, and how? This goes along with being informed about a medical procedure. How is it wrong to show a woman that the child inside of her already has a beating heart?

  3. Alicia September 20, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    @Arual- Because the same thing can be achieved with pamphlets and counseling. You know, how it’s already achieved? No one is saying women shouldn’t be informed, but forcing an ultrasound on them when they’ve already made the decision to abort doesn’t increase the likelihood that they’ll change their mind (all evidence points to the contrary) and only succeeds in making the procedure more expensive and more traumatic. Why is it okay to put further emotional and mental stress on a woman already making a major health and life choice?

  4. Odile September 20, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    @ Alicia – Are pamphlets and counseling as efficacious as real time images? If I was having a surgical/medical procedure I would especially appreciate sonographic evidence of what was being removed in the course of the procedure, or any evidence of the abnormal condition that would be the reason for my procedure. Ultrasound is a legitimate diagnostic/screening tool that enhances informed consent, as well as providing a non-invasive image of the targeted mass of cells, or anomalous organ involved in a procedure. It is a standard of care for safe, effective medical practice. Ultrasound only can enhance the safety of the abortion procedure by identifying anatomic structures and any abnormality that may problematic for a woman undergoing a ‘blind’ procedure. And, if it is already emotionally difficult for a woman to undergo an abortion, and she decides not to allow the procedure based upon ultrasound evidence, is this a problem? In my opinion, it would be nobody’s business but her own, and in some respects, maybe preventative of further problems.

    I’m all for ultrasound as a standard of care pre-abortion, for reasons of safety and informed consent. The “increased cost” would not be a legitimate argument, because medicaid and private insurance will pay for sonongrams in pregnancy under several diagnoses.

    My question to you, Alicia (with all due respect) – Could you please explain why looking at an ultrasound would cause a woman more “emotional and mental stress”?

  5. Shayna September 20, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    Those of you shocked that I am aghast at Rick Perry’s insistence on forcing women to undergo needless medical procedures (and invasive ones at that!) – My issue is not with offering women ultrasounds along with actual facts (such as real information on fetal pain rather than the idiotic nonsense currently being spouted). My issue is with Rick Perry FORCING women to undergo these procedures. If you cannot tell the difference, then I suggest you compare it to learning about your digestive system from a book and cutting yourself open to see it. There is no need to mutilate yourself and there is no reason to invade women’s bodies with unnecessary medical procedures.

  6. Dee September 21, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    “Could you please explain why looking at an ultrasound would cause a woman more “emotional and mental stress”?”

    I’m always amused when antis pretend to care for the woman’s informed consent when they really just want to make it harder to her to get the abortion she wants.

    In many areas, women have to travel hundreds of miles to get to the nearest abortion provider. They have to take time off work to do this. Depending on the nature of their job, they may or may not have health benefits that cover the ultrasound, which is an extra, unnecessary expense. The ultrasound might also mean extra days off work in addition to the ones she has to take off for the abortion. Since research shows that ultrasounds do not change women’s minds, they are rightdown insulting, an imposition that implies that the woman is not a big enough girl to research the abortion decision before making it. I know that I do not accept any medical procedure without research. If I were forced into an ultrasound, I’d be angry at the fact that the state thinks I’m an infant.

    The prochoice community is not opposed to ultrasound. If a woman wishes to view it before termination, we’re all for that. What we are against is FORCED ultrasounds that have no medical basis. They are insulting.

    I also find it amusing that people who would love nothing more to than to force ultrasounds on women are the same ones who scream to high heaven when someone suggests an HPV vaccine for all girls.

  7. Odile September 23, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    Dee:

    I stand by my assertion that an ultrasound provides valuable information that is beneficial to the health and welfare of any woman seeking an abortion (which is why most abortion clinics require a pre-procedure u/s), and still am wonering why a woman would object to viewing one pre-abortion (doesn’t anyone have an answer for this?). Regardless of how it would influence her decision. It would also put to rest any argument that abortion providers misinform their patients about what is actually occuring within the uterus. If one is actually convinced that they are on the side of righteousness by being an abortion advocate, then that righteousness will certainly withstand whatever ‘mystique’ the u/s holds. Shouldn’t one err on the side of health and safety?

    I would find it amusing that people who scream to high heaven that the government shouldn’t force a woman to view an ultrasound pre-abortion, would love nothing more than for the government to force 11 and 12 year old girls to be vaccinated against their wishes, with absolutely no opportunity to opt out. But shouldn’t the government be actively involved in our health care choices, even if it means taking away a certain percentage of people’s choices for the greater good of keeping them safe? Isn’t that the point of health care legislation? Consistency in an argument is key.

  8. Sophia September 25, 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    Prior to my abortion, I wanted to look at the ultrasound picture, the nurse looked at me and said, “sure.” What I saw was a speck, I said, “where is it?” And she pointed to another, even smaller speck and said, “that’s it.” I replied, “oh.” It was a completely non-factor because I *CHOSE* to look at it… Being forced to do anything, including going through a pregnancy for 9 months, and being forced to look at a sonogram screen or print out, is just plain wrong and totally unnecessary.

    Because guess what, THE PATIENT ISN’T A DOCTOR. The doctor and/or nurse/sonogram technician doing the sonogram get whatever information they need from the pre-abortion procedure in order to complete the abortion procedure. The patient doesn’t need to see the sonogram in order to insure her own safety, she’s not a doctor.

  9. Dee September 26, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    “still am wonering why a woman would object to viewing one pre-abortion (doesn’t anyone have an answer for this?).”

    I did answer this. Unless the doctor needs the u/s in order to find some sort of medical complication he suspects exists, it’s an unnecessary procedure that:
    1) Costs money
    2) Delays the abortion
    3) Might require more days off work for women who are already taking days off for the abortion…and most importantly…
    4) It infantilizes women, assuring them the government does not think they’re big enough girls to make their own decisions, nor bright enough to research the procedure or ASK for the u/s if they require more information.
    ———————————————————
    “Regardless of how it would influence her decision.”

    It wouldn’t. All research proves that it doesn’t. It’s simply an extra expense that serves no purpose if the woman does not desire it.
    ———————————————————

    “It would also put to rest any argument that abortion providers misinform their patients about what is actually occuring within the uterus.”

    No, it doesn’t. Most abortions occur when the blastocyst/embryo looks like a speck or a blob. Also, since most abortion patients are mothers, they are perfectly aware of what a fetus is. In fact, they’ve seen u/s of their previous pregnancies at various stages.

  10. Dee September 26, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    “But shouldn’t the government be actively involved in our health care choices, even if it means taking away a certain percentage of people’s choices for the greater good of keeping them safe? Isn’t that the point of health care legislation?”

    The key here is “the greater good.” Preventing a woman from having access to abortion services or forcing her to have an unnecessary ultrasound in no way helps the greater good. Having girls vaccinated for HPV can stop strains of cancer from killing them later on. It also stops them from SPREADING it. In fact, mandated vaccinations have practically eradicated several communicable illnesses. That IS the greater good.

  11. Odile September 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Dee:

    abortion is an elective procedure. if a woman doesn’t want to view an ultrasound, then she can opt out of a procedure she has elected to undergo, but is not medically necessary. while an ultrasound may cause inconvenience and added expense, it doesn’t take away a woman’s choice to have an abortion.

    a blanket mandate that all eleven year old girls will receive the HPV vaccine leaves no possibility of opting out. it encroaches upon individual rights and takes away choice.

    do you see the difference?

    would you agree that taking away choice does not promote the greater good, or do you cherry pick based upon which cause you happen to support? or perhaps you might agree that choice is not limited to one ideological perspective.

    if i am to believe what i am reading, inconvenience and cost are the only legitimate arguments against madatory ultrasound viewing. the answer to the problem is clear. same day ultrasound immediately before the procedure (already done in most clinics – what’s this about taking extra days off for an ultrasoudn??), and abortioneers, because they care about women, should offer the ultrasounds at low/no cost to women seeking abortions, in the event that this legislation would become law. problem solved.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. HPV Day and How Bachmann & Perry HPV Vaccine Debate Proves Neither Candidate Gives a Shit About Women’s Health | The Opinioness of the World - September 16, 2011

    […] donations from pharmaceutical company Merck, who happen to be the makers of Gardasil. A dude who supports Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill,” abstinence-only education, forced sonograms and stripping ac… is no friend to women and no reproductive rights […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: