     |
03 19 01
THE BIG-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES ARE AT IT AGAIN
Heads up, women and those who care about them - the right-wing machine
is gearing up to roll over women's rights and crush them flat. This
does not come as a surprise to those of us who saw the writing on the
wall even before Shrub and his right-wing cronies stole the election;
but for many people, it's going to be a rude shock indeed.
Before November 7th, I told everyone who would listen that if Bush was
elected, he'd do everything within his power to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Pro-choice Republicans scoffed and insisted that Shrub was a "moderate",
and that I was just using "scare tactics"; anti-choice regressives
wisely kept their mouths shut, not wanting the truth to come out. The
media gave Shrub a free ride on the abortion issue, apparently feeling
that it wasn't fair to question the poor guy on such a complex subject
and that their time was better spent praising him every time he managed
to utter an entire sentence without messing up.
Now that Smirk is comfortably ensconced in Al Gore's house, the right-wingers
in Congress are scrambling like mad to restrict reproductive rights
wherever they have the opportunity. The corporate media, faithfully
following the philosophy of "for God's sake don't tell the peasants
what's happening; they might not like it!" has been predictably
silent about the growing number of bills under construction which would
do everything from limiting access to RU-486 to throwing people in jail
who help a minor go to another state to get an abortion.
Perhaps the most insidious of these bills is the so-called Unborn Victims
of Violence Act, which would impose additional criminal penalties on
anyone who injured or killed a fetus as a result of attacking a pregnant
woman. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable proposal - who could
argue against the notion that someone who harms an unborn child AND
its mother should pay a higher price? You've got to hand it to the regressives
- they know how to play their cards. By this seemingly fair and just
proposal, they intend to give fetuses a separate legal status. If the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act becomes law, then a precedent will have
been set that will get the ball rolling on overturning Roe vs. Wade.
After all, if a fetus is protected by law, then abortion becomes something
more than a "choice".
The vast majority of Republicans who'll put on their "sanctity
of life" hats and look gravely concerned over violence against
pregnant women don't really give two hoots for the unborn; this is the
current bone being offered to the right-wing fundamentalists, and it's
a juicy one. The Republicans have finally realized that they have to
do more than pay lip service to the radical right; they've got to start
paying the piper, or they'll start to lose support. And that means starting
to "git tuff" on abortion.
Never mind that prating endlessly about the value of human life as it
pertains to unborn children is hypocrisy in the highest degree when
it comes from the same people who support the death penalty; the right-wingers
appear to have the moral high ground when it comes to the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act, and they'll point that out at every opportunity. The
only way to combat them is to make sure that everyone knows exactly
what they're doing. The majority of the people in this country do not
want Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Let's take a moment to examine the issue of abortion. First of all,
there are the two sides - pro-choice and...anti-choice. No, I won't
dignify their position with the clever term "pro-life", because
A) anyone who supports the death penalty is obviously NOT "pro-life"
and B) using the term "pro-life" indicates that those who
disagree are ANTI-life, which is simply not true. You are either pro-choice
or anti-choice.
Those who are anti-choice believe that abortion is murder. And yet,
the definition of murder - according to my handy Merriam-Webster dictionary
- is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with
malice aforethought" or "to kill (a human being) unlawfully
and with premeditated malice". So clearly, abortion isn't murder
- it's legal, and women who have abortions certainly are not doing so
out of malice.
Is abortion, then, a "good" thing? Certainly not, in my opinion.
And yet if we decided to outlaw everything that wasn't "good",
we'd find ourselves in one hell of a pickle. First, who would decide
what was "good" and what was "bad"? I think that
teaching young children that people of a different religion are going
to burn for eternity in the aftrerlife is "bad" - could we
outlaw that? Most people agree that divorce is "bad" - should
we outlaw that? And let's not stop there - it's also "bad"
to smoke, so shouldn't we toss people like me, who can't seem to quit
smoking, into prison? And what about pornography - a lot of people think
that's "bad", so let's arrest everyone who buys a dirty magazine
or rents an X-rated movie.
What's that you say? I'm going too far? Ah, but that's a matter of opinion,
isn't it?
Of course it is. The thing is, once you start legislating morality,
where do you draw the line?
Republicans who are a bit too timid to come right out and say they want
to overturn Roe vs. Wade will instead say that they merely want to reduce
the number of abortions in the country. And hey, that sounds like a
good plan to me. But the end doesn't justify the means. I'm sure we'd
all like to see a reduction in the number of divorces every year...but
how many people would support laws which restrict their right to end
a lousy marriage? (If you answered "the right-wing fundamentalists",
you win a kewpie doll...but they're the only ones). There are ways to
reduce abortion without infringing on a woman's right to choose what
to do with her own body. Family planning is one of the best ways...yet
regressives want to limit family planning as well. Go figure.
It's always struck me as ironic that regressives shriek at their top
of their lungs about the evils of "big government", yet they
are the first ones to welcome with open arms the notion of "big
government" telling them what they can and can't do. The sad fact
is that ordinary, everyday people who vote Republican because their
pastor tells them to don't really understand the dichotomy of the right-wing
platform. "Sanctity of life" applies only to unborn children;
once you're born, you're fair game for the screwed-up justice system.
"Individual freedom" applies only to white, male, heterosexual
gun-owners. "Personal responsibility" applies only to individuals
who aren't elected Republican officials. And on and on and on.
Right-wingers like to pretend that they have the monopoly on morality,
when in fact their moral code is so warped that if there is a hell,
they are surely headed to it (where, according to Shrub, they'll be
kept company by everyone who isn't a Christian). The clearest proof
of this is the term "compassionate conservative". Ever heard
the term "compassionate liberal"? Of course not, because the
term would be redundant. Only conservatives are so lacking in basic
human decency that they have to coin a phrase like "compassionate
conservative" to try to prove that they have a heart. The funny
thing is that they've shot themselves in the foot (though not so funny
is the fact that many people lacked the brains to notice) with the term,
because if a "compassionate conservative" is supposed to be
different from a "regular conservative", what does that say
about conservatives in general?
You got it.
~Rose
Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may
not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The
articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced
in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however,
have permission to post a link to this article and include the first
few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.