However, he would allow choice in the case of rape or incest (redundant because incest is rape.)
I suppose it's too late for a write in campaign?
Yesterday at 5:26 PM
Mourdock’s Opponent Just the Lesser of Two Evils
By Ann Friedman
<snip>
Today the Obama campaign called Mourdock’s remarks “outrageous and demeaning to women.” Another compelling anecdote in what the New York Times calls “a Democratic narrative that depicts the Republican party as out of step with women.” After Mitt Romney said he disagreed with Mourdock’s comments but would maintain his endorsement, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee circulated a petition asking Romney to “denounce Richard Mourdock for his disgusting anti-woman views.”
<snip>
I know we’re in the final weeks of a hotly contested campaign season, but it’s hard to take the Democratic party seriously in this case. Mourdock’s opponent, Democrat Joe Donnelly, also believes “life begins at conception” and opposes abortion except for cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother. Last year, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, that would have banned abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges. Maybe he didn’t make a stupid comment about divinely inspired pregnancies as a result of rape, but he does cite his faith as a reason he opposes women’s right to choose. NARAL gives him a score of only 20 percent. He voted twice to block Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding.
And I’m just supposed to be outraged about Mourdock?
After the debate, Donnelly said he was shocked by Mourdock’s comments, and that his God would never intend a pregnancy to result from rape. The Donnelly campaign quickly moved to position itself as the woman-friendly alternative: Donnelly held a “brief press event” this morning outside the Julian Center, an Indianapolis domestic violence shelter — though an official at the Center was quick to tell the Cut that the event was “held on a public sidewalk” and “not affiliated” with them.
“Let me say I am pro-life, but this controversy is not about pro-life,” said Donnelly at the press event. “It is about Mr. Mourdock's words and his continuation of extreme positions. His words were extreme, but maybe as important, hurtful to survivors of sexual abuse. There are too many hardworking people in the building behind us who deal with this on a daily basis.”
<snip>
I get it: Donnelly is the lesser of two evils. I understand how bills are passed in a two-party system. I understand why even an anti-choice Democrat is probably a better choice for women than an anti-choice Republican. But it’s easy to forget, in the heat of campaign season, that there are real consequences — especially for women — for failing to call out the members of the supposedly more progressive party whose views are eerily close to those of Akin and Mourdock.
We tend to realize long after the votes have been tallied, when we watch some Democrats in Congress vote with their Republican colleagues to defund Planned Parenthood or strip abortion coverage from health-care legislation, that the problem isn’t just anti-choice Republicans. It’s all politicians who want to define the circumstances under which abortion is acceptable and accessible.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/10/mourdocks-opponent-just-the-lesser-of-two-evils.htmlSo, can we expect all the same Democrats who smirked and snarked about Akins and Mourdock to do the same about Donnelly?
When confronted with this information by a pro-choice Republican contributor to MSNBC, Ed Shultz did not skip a beat in his discussion about how outrageous Mourdock is. Shultz said "But it's not part of his party's platform."
True enough, but the Party platform does not determine how Donnelly would vote, if elected. And speaking of the Party platform, does it contain anything about repealing the Hyde Amendment?
Gals, vote Donnelly, 2012. The very marginally lesser of two evils! Woohoo!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
