Nut Gingrich And Other "Personhood" Candidates On Abortion
Got an IUD? If Gingrich or others of his ilk are elected in great enough numbers, you could potentially be charged with murder. Paul Hsieh writes at PJMedia:
Gingrich recently signed [1] the "Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge" [2] which affirms that "unborn children" should be regarded as persons with full legal rights "from the moment of conception ... without exception and without compromise." Gingrich signed the pledge after taking heat for an earlier statement stating that human life began after embryo implantation [3] in the womb (which occurs a few days after fertilization). His campaign has since clarified [4]: "Newt believes that human life begins at conception, that is, at the moment of fertilization." If enacted into law, this seemingly small distinction could have serious implications for the legality of many forms of birth control.The "personhood" movement represents the most ideologically consistent endpoint of the anti-abortion movement. In their view, once a human sperm fertilizes an egg, the zygote deserves full protection as a legal "person" comparable to a born child. Under this standard, abortion would become illegal even in cases of rape and incest -- one of the goals of "personhood" advocates. However, recognizing fertilized eggs as legal persons would also have serious implications for issues other than abortion. As Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh describe in their 2010 paper [5], this includes potentially limiting women's ability to receive in vitro fertilization and physicians' ability to treat women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. But one of the biggest political issues would be the legality of many forms of birth control.
According to Personhood USA [6], "birth control that causes the death of a living human being would be affected." Hence, IUDs [7] would also become illegal because they are "designed to kill the tiniest children by preventing implantation." Medications such as "Plan B" or the "morning after pill" (which can block implantation of a fertilized egg) would also be outlawed.
...If Gingrich wins the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, it would be the first time that a "personhood" supporter would be on the national ballot. In 2008, John McCain declined to endorse the "personhood" movement. Rather, American Right to Life, which describes itself as "the personhood wing of the pro-life movement," attacked John McCain in 2008 as "pro-abortion [15]" for supporting legal abortion in cases of rape. In 2012, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachman have also signed the Personhood Pledge. In contrast, Mitt Romney is anti-abortion, but has not signed the Personhood Pledge and supports legal abortion in case of rape or incest.
If Gingrich (or any other "personhood" supporter) wins the 2012 GOP nomination, the future legality of birth control pills and IUDs would immediately become a national political issue, to the detriment of the Republicans. Just as the "personhood" issue tipped the swing state of Colorado in favor of the Democrats in 2010, it could also tip a few critical swing states in favor of Obama in 2012.
Given nature, ie "GOD" aborts far more babies every year then all forms of birth control and abortion doctors combined, I'd be interests in how the members of the Republican Personhood Pledge plan to stop his unholy reign of murder
lujlp at January 10, 2012 1:54 AM
To all:
When will you get it through your head that the President does not pass legislation?
Single-issue mania is going to wreck this country. Superman would be passed over for not having a boyfriend and being uncommon.
You got Sotomayor and what's-her-name because they haven't done anything. Gee, neither has the current President. How's that working out?
Insanity: demanding that a Presidential candidante have standards, then bitching when he doesn't have exactly your view of a situation. Hey, idiot, that's why he or she is a candidate and you're sitting at home!
Radwaste at January 10, 2012 2:52 AM
When these idiots start showing concern for the born, then they can worry about the un-born.
DrCos at January 10, 2012 3:32 AM
@Radwaste: Dead on.
The problem is, the whole damned religious-conservative movement demands that Republican candidates take idiotic positions like this. Worse, they control enough of the vote that that the candidates actually feel compelled to do so.
Gingrich is a pure politician. He doesn't actually believes this stuff, or much of anything else he says. He is in the business of telling people what they want to hear.
I think I'll vote for Donald Duck this year. He can't be any worse than the available crop of candidates, and maybe his uncle will pay of the national debt for us.
a_random_guy at January 10, 2012 3:40 AM
Unlike Obama, Gingrich will not be president, nor would he try an end-run around the Constitution. You're worrying about what the guy who's third and fading in a not-so-great field might do if he were dictator?
I'm saving my angst for things like operation gunrunner, or the Iranian nukes.
MarkD at January 10, 2012 4:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/10/nut_gingrich_an.html#comment-2905178">comment from a_random_guyThe problem is, the whole damned religious-conservative movement demands that Republican candidates take idiotic positions like this.
This is the problem. Fiscally, I generally despite the Republicans somewhat less than I despise the Democrats (the Republicans at least pretend to be for small government and show it in some ways), but I am not a social conservative by any stretch, and a lot of people who might vote Republican are driven away by crap like this.
Amy Alkon at January 10, 2012 6:56 AM
Is there even a remote chance that it will be him? I thought it was down to Santorum and Romney. I don't think the more extreme candidates are in the running anymore.
And God kills grownups, too, but that doesn't mean we want to legalize killing grownups. While I'm not against IUDs et al, I don't think "it happens in nature / God does it sometimes" are valid arguments.
NicoleK at January 10, 2012 7:21 AM
The end goal of the people pushing these kinds of pledges is to outlaw contraception entirely. I believe that this is what Santorum favors, since he wants the state to follow Catholic dogma in envy way (except stuff like torture, which he favors).
Rad is of course correct that the president does not write the laws, but the president has a lot of power to push a legislative agenda. Presidents by and large try to do what they run on, especially if they have a motivated interest group pressing them on the issue. A candidate who signs a pledge like this might very well propose legislation granting personhood to a zygote.
I don't think the more extreme candidates are in the running anymore.
Santorum is about as extreme a social conservative as one can be. But he doesn't have much of a chance; he isn't going to finish top 3 in New Hampshire, and does not have a lot money or a strong organization.
It's basically Romney with about 25% support, Paul with about 10% support, and a big chunk of not-Romney, distributed among other candidates. Unfortunately, not-Romney isn't organized, and doesn't have a clear candidate. Romney is very likely to win New Hampshire and then South Carolina, after which the nomination will be his.
Christopher at January 10, 2012 8:25 AM
"When these idiots start showing concern for the born, then they can worry about the un-born."
This.
Mike Hunter at January 10, 2012 8:30 AM
I don't buy the idea that we shouldn't be upset about this because Newt doesn't really mean it. If he (and other candidates) don't mean it, then what else are they saying that they don't mean? I am taking politicians at their word because that's all we have -- that and their voting records. If Newt says he believes a fertilized egg is a person, then I will take him on his word that he is a crackpot who would support legislation that would make all hormonal birth control and abortion illegal.
And Amy, you're right about this sort of thing scaring off the Democrats. I vote Democrat just about every time because of crap like this. I am well aware of the fact that the president doesn't make law, but if Newt supports stances like this, then I have to believe he will support any law that limits birth control and abortion, and that his views do not remotely coincide with mine. Reason enough not to vote for him.
MonicaP at January 10, 2012 8:33 AM
The fact the president does not pass legislation is a straw man here. Since when are a presidential candidate's beliefs irrelevant? If Gingrich was pro-abortion, that would certainly help millions of voters decide whether or not to vote for him.
Same with his or her religion; a president certainly can't pass legislation in favor of or against any particular religion, but it's a relevant factor to many people.
If Gingrich didn't want to step into this briar patch, all he had to do was refuse to sign the document. Since he didn't, it's disingenuous to say it isn't relevant; it was important enough for him to put his name on a controversial document he could have just as easily ignored.
Kevin at January 10, 2012 8:39 AM
I call bull that personhood tipped the election in Colo. Were pretty notorious for voting specific issues rather than straight ticket. Personhood has failed several times here, because it doesn't actually address anyone's issues, and it doesn't address the potential that a child that is miscarried would not get prosecutor scrutiny on WHY it happened. After all, it would be considered the same as a born child.
This is like other zero tolerance laws, it has some major unintended consequence.
Dunno, I'd love for a candidate to step up and illuminate the difference between personal belief and public policy. I explain it to social conservatives all the time... You personal belief cannot push all public policy, just because you say so.
Meanwhile, these characters are certainly saying what they need to say to their specific audience... we can't decide based on only one issue.
In any case, this is a distraction from the real problem of the economy and job issues. Getting drawn into such questions, is just a screen.
SwissArmyD at January 10, 2012 9:04 AM
Of course Gingrich is against abortion. He knows better than anyone that he should have been one.
Patrick at January 10, 2012 9:08 AM
I'm a Libertarian, and my position is, if you are against abortion, don't get one. If you are against contraception, don't use it. Don't like Gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Conversely, don't like guns, don't buy one. Don't like religion, don't go to church. Don't like fatty foods, don't eat them.
I am tired of Progressives and Conservatives using the power of the state to promulgate their pet social projects.
This used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now we are fettered and hobbled by a zillion stupid laws and an army of bureaucrats to enforce them, and our only growth industries are surveillance and SWAT Team equipment.
What we need is a candidate who isn't a kook and is willing to stand up for The People's Rights as defined in The Constitution and against narrow special interest rights.
Old Guy at January 10, 2012 9:56 AM
@Radwaste is right. As a legal concern, this is a non-issue. State legislatures pass laws concerning abortion and birth control access, and said legislatures are bound by the US Constitution, which as of 1973 has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment to mean that women have a legal right to abortion and birth control.
People got worked up about this issue when Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 were elected. And abortion is
According to CNN and MSNBC polls, support for abortion being legal in all cases sits around 50% right now in the US. That means that 50% of Americans have some sort of issue with abortion- be it parental consent, 3rd trimester, etc. That's half of the voting public saying access to abortion needs to be restricted by law in some situations. This is precisely why it's such a land mine.
Amy, your best point, in my opinion is that this is a bad bad PR move. As a Republican, it drives me bonkers to see candidates do this. The GOP needs to steel Bill Clinton's quote: Abortion should be rare, but legal. I don't think any American thinks abortion should be used casually.
Most of my friends who vote republican do so because of fiscal issues. That's what the GOP should be focused on. As Bob Dole said, "It's your money. You earned it and you shouldn't have to apologize for wanting to keep it."
If the GOP focused on THAT instead of caving to the far right sanctimonious jack holes who feel its their right to impose their religious views on an entire nation, then the Republicans would have a majority of the nation on their side.
UW Girl at January 10, 2012 10:09 AM
and a lot of people who might vote Republican are driven away by crap like this.
Which is why the media harps on them constantly about it.
A gay friend was recently complaining on a chat channel that the Republicans "won't shut up about gay marriage". I said "They're not allowed to. The Democrats and Media (but I repeat myself) won't _let_ them."
Seriously. It's a current issue, and it's one that would be legitimately asked. Court cases abound about various LGTS* situations.
Notice the media doesn't pester Mr. Obama, who's very anti-legalized-gay-marriage. Cause, there's no need for that.
It's set up to be a lose-lose proposition. My fault with the politicians who keep running up to kick the football held by the media Lucy is that they're still so damn stupid they haven't figured it out yet.
Radwaste:
When will you get it through your head that the President does not pass legislation?
Propose, I think you mean. He signs it into law. He also oversees the appointees who head up the bureaus who will administer it. And he picks the for-life-Supreme Court nominees who will validate it.
But you're right that it's unfair to expect the Presidential Candidate to be exactly in phase with you. Which is why I'd prefer to get ones who will leave me alone more than coerce me. They're just few and far between, and the media *really* takes a hate-on to them.
Unix-Jedi at January 10, 2012 10:13 AM
"When these idiots start showing concern for the born, then they can worry about the un-born."
This.
The argument above is painfully pedestrian in its obfuscation.
First, it utterly avoids rendering any argument about the issue at hand, and rather devolves into moral relativism to a silly level. One neednt even have an opinion on the issue here to see that this particular argument is just lazy.
So, lets take someone who does have "concern for the born"......what is that? Whats it mean? You who are saying this, may I assume that you then have "concern for the born"? And....pray tell, how do you manifest that concern? What is your flavor of altruism?
Let me guess, you favor social programs, you want "to help people"....right? Please explain....how do you do that?
Whats your charity look like? How much extra do you add to your tax bill? All that. THEN, assuming you do do all that, lets take a person who actually DOES MORE....would that suit you that they have said concern for the born?
Now...that person with better creds than you on "the born" opposes abortion....how do you actually address THEM?
Funny fact....those who oppose abortion DO have better creds for "the born" if one defines it with charity. How can that be explained?
empathologicalism at January 10, 2012 10:16 AM
UW Girl:
I don't think any American thinks abortion should be used casually.
Sadly untrue. I've known more than a couple. It's not _common_, not like in, say, Russia, but neither is it all that uncommon at the moment.
Most of my friends who vote republican do so because of fiscal issues. That's what the GOP should be focused on. As Bob Dole said, "It's your money. You earned it and you shouldn't have to apologize for wanting to keep it."
I said when the guy asked "Of each dollar I earn, how much am I entitled to keep?" had the winning slogan if the Republicans were smart enough to seize that meme.
But then I realized that that would take the Republicans to be slightly smart, and figured they'd drop the ball.
Unix-Jedi at January 10, 2012 10:17 AM
Is there even a remote chance that it will be him? I thought it was down to Santorum and Romney.
Posted by: NicoleK at January 10, 2012 7:21 AM
Hardly. Santorum is already falling. What I don't get is why liberal Republicans haven't already chased him out by using his stances on contraception - after all, that position is their SECOND reason to get rid of him!
lenona at January 10, 2012 10:17 AM
My fault with the politicians who keep running up to kick the football held by the media Lucy is that they're still so damn stupid they haven't figured it out yet.
"It's the media's fault!" is about as accurate as "It's society's fault!" or "It's racism's fault!" or "It's the fault of corporations" or any other pass-the-buck scenario.
In situations like Gingrich and personhood, it follows an old template:
1) Candidate takes a position to appeal to far-left or far-right.
2) Candidate either wins the primary or rises in the polls.
3) Candidate is asked about that position again when he/she is trying to tack toward center to pick up more votes.
4) Candidate whines about "gotcha" questions and blames the media.
Notice the media doesn't pester Mr. Obama, who's very anti-legalized-gay-marriage. Cause, there's no need for that.
Of course they do; it just doesn't fit your theory of media victimology. That issue cropped up in the 2008 Democratic and Republican debates, and continues to do so.
A quick Google search shows Jay Carney, the president's flack, was asked about it as recently as Jan. 6, four days ago. For the record, he weaseled, waffled and ducked the question.
Kevin at January 10, 2012 11:23 AM
The republicans pay lip service to this. They, when they had the house and the presidency, did nothing to outlaw abortion. I get that it is a social liberals clarion call but it just isn't going to happen. And pro-lifers like me know that there will have to be change in people's hearts, and our own, for abortion to end. If you closed and chained all the abortion clinics tomorrow woman would be beating down the doors to get in. We know that.
And empathologicalism is right. We do care for the born we just do it our of our own damned pockets and cut our own grocery or usage bills to pay for it. We don't reach our prolife fingers into your pockets. I know 4 couples right now who are prolife Christians who are housing pregnant woman right now so they have food and a place to live while they are pregnant. Now we just have to get prolifers to encourage men to be involved. To many see the guy as the bad guy who just wants the kid dead instead of as the father with rights.
JosephineMO7 at January 10, 2012 11:55 AM
Lujip,
I just finished miscarrying at 8 weeks. God did not murder my baby. I had a blighted ovum. I am getting older and my body doesn't want to make babies anymore. Something went wrong. The baby didn't form and we lost the pregnancy. It sucks but it happens. If there was a soul there I will meet him or her someday. Just not in July like planned.
JosephineMO7 at January 10, 2012 12:00 PM
"I think I'll vote for Donald Duck this year. He can't be any worse than the available crop of candidates, and maybe his uncle will pay of the national debt for us."
Idiotic.
UW Girl:
I don't think any American thinks abortion should be used casually.
Sadly untrue. I've known more than a couple. It's not _common_, not like in, say, Russia, but neither is it all that uncommon at the moment."
"
UW girl, you are sadly mistaken. I've known more than a few people who got abortions starting when I was in my teens and continuing now to mid-30's married motherhood, and none of them-not a single one-seems to have dithered over it or felt bad in any way. It' was an annoyance and they felt nothing getting rid of it. And most had done it more than once. If people did agree it should not be used casually, there would be virtually no repeat abortions.
I am very prolife and would never use an IUD, but I don't go so far as saying other women should be banned from it. So apparently I am an implantation-prolifer. Huh. It's not an issue I'd vote on, though. I voted for Clinton for many reasons, one of which was I was prochoice back then, but abortion has never been the be all end all for me on voting then or now. I can't imagine it's ever going to be outlawed although I'd like it to be and there are a lot of issues one must consider in politicians.
momof4 at January 10, 2012 1:36 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/10/nut_gingrich_an.html#comment-2907403">comment from JosephineMO7JosephineMO7, my sympathies.
Amy Alkon at January 10, 2012 2:40 PM
The argument above is painfully pedestrian in its obfuscation.
A simple way of putting how it is.
First, it utterly avoids rendering any argument about the issue at hand...
OK. Peoples choice on contraception are theirs to make. However it pans out for them on a cosmic level doesn't affect you or others. So it's really none of your (and our collective) business.
Let me guess, you favor social programs, you want "to help people"....right?
Why not? We can certainly help those who don't need it with tax breaks and government bailouts. But Heaven forbid we use that money to help the homeless in this country.
Whats your charity look like?
Kinda like TARP, only to people who actually NEED the money and help. And before you chime in again, yes, I would certainly be glad to help you choose.
Now...that person with better creds than you on "the born" opposes abortion....how do you actually address THEM?
Maybe we should elect them to office. Too bad there are so few. And most of them are too smart to run for office.
And the whole contraception thing would STILL be none of their business.
Polemic, perhaps, but not pedestrian.
DrCos at January 10, 2012 2:41 PM
Has a "pledge" ever had an impact in the real world? Have they even been significantly accurate in indicating what a candidate really wanted to do, or in fact did?
Not that I'm aware of.
Their entire point is signaling to an interest group - and nobody (sane) actually expects a "pledge" to bind anyone to specific details - or, realistically, to any concrete action at all.
(I am equally surprised they bother to sign them, given that they seem tailored to provide hysterical* fits to the opposition.
I suppose the logic is that anyone who'd fall for the "X signed this pledge, so the world will end if X wins, because the pledge reveals their True Plan!" gambit was never going to vote for X in the first place, ever.
*I contemplated finding another word, but ... too good to change.)
Sigivald at January 10, 2012 2:44 PM
Kevin:
""It's the media's fault!" is about as accurate as "It's society's fault!" or "It's racism's fault!" or "It's the fault of corporations" or any other pass-the-buck scenario."
That's not what I said. I said it was the Republican's fault for trying to kick the ball.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me a few thousand times, well, I must be a Republican.
You're not actually arguing with what I said.
The media is part and parcel of the Democrat Party. Full Stop. Anybody who wants to argue that can get on the Truther Bus. Not only are they directly linked, linked by marriage, we've got the (partial) email dumps of TownHouse, then JournoList to back it.
That's just how it is. Ethics and morals aside, it's a fact of life, and the Republicans are markedly bad at responding correctly to that known information. They nominated McCain, because of how popular he was with the press. (It was when he was a "Maverick" and mostky attacking Republicans.) The establishment does not understand how to deal with the press in order to change mindsets.
Reagan did. And the press spent 10+ years telling us what a idiotic madman he was. (Now they've spent 10 telling us they never, ever, ever said that, and gee, where did all those respectable Reagan sorts go).
There are a few others. They get eviscerated by the press when they start to get dangerously close to registering with the American public. (Or they try to.)
Now, someone asked that as a press conference. I'll admit, I've been busy. What newspapers reported that as big news? How many exposes have been aired and written about how Obama hates Teh Gey?
I've seen no less than 5 in the past 2 weeks about that in major media about Republican candidates. And I wasn't looking.
So it's possible I've been missing the press pounding on Obama for saying exactly what they're pounding on the Republicans for saying, Apologies if I did. Can you point me to where they were?
Unix-Jedi at January 10, 2012 3:02 PM
The media is part and parcel of the Democrat Party. Full Stop. Anybody who wants to argue that can get on the Truther Bus.
I'm not going to argue it; you're going to have to prove it. I don't accept that and am not starting with that as a truth to be disproved. Rather, I'll look at the numbers:
According to Arbitron, the most popular talk/news radio shows in the country are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Morning Edition (NPR), and All Things Considered (NPR).
According to yesterday's Nielsen report (Jan. 9), the most popular cable news networks in the country (in order) were Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN (MSNBC and CNN flipped in the demographic 25-44). Fox was by far the champion in every hour bracket. Every single one.
If you accept all of that as being "part and parcel of the Democratic Party," that's your business, but those are the numbers and that's the free market at work. People prefer Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to other radio/TV news choices. They are the mainstream media at this moment in time.
Now, someone asked that as a press conference. I'll admit, I've been busy. What newspapers reported that as big news? How many exposes have been aired and written about how Obama hates Teh Gey?
I have no idea; I don't keep track of it either. But it took me a 10-second Google search through White House transcripts to find the question and the answer.
Reagan did. And the press spent 10+ years telling us what a idiotic madman he was. (Now they've spent 10 telling us they never, ever, ever said that, and gee, where did all those respectable Reagan sorts go). There are a few others. They get eviscerated by the press when they start to get dangerously close to registering with the American public.
Again with blaming the press, the press, the press. Which candidates are you talking about here?
Kevin at January 10, 2012 4:03 PM
"When these idiots start showing concern"
Big problem. These people are not idiots. They are hateful, they are shrewd, they are anti-liberty, they are organized, and they are getting attention from gutless politicians whose only aim is to get elected and then get reelected.
These people are the public face of the American Taliban. Underestimate them at your peril, because this is only one of many restrictions they'll want to place on your life.
Drugs. Alcohol. Tobacco. Sex. Religion (and especially, lack of religion). Data-based science.
All are in their gunsights.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 10, 2012 5:53 PM
A good president should say, "I don't believe in abortion. Yet, I'm going to do what the majority of the people want, whether that is stronger regulations on abortion or to leave it like it is. Either way, my job would be to do what the majority of the people would want, not set laws based on my whims."
Cat at January 10, 2012 5:53 PM
*****I'm a Libertarian, and my position is, if you are against abortion, don't get one. If you are against contraception, don't use it. Don't like Gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Conversely, don't like guns, don't buy one. Don't like religion, don't go to church. Don't like fatty foods, don't eat them.
I am tired of Progressives and Conservatives using the power of the state to promulgate their pet social projects.
This used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now we are fettered and hobbled by a zillion stupid laws and an army of bureaucrats to enforce them, and our only growth industries are surveillance and SWAT Team equipment.
What we need is a candidate who isn't a kook and is willing to stand up for The People's Rights as defined in The Constitution and against narrow special interest rights.*****
THIS!
Daghain at January 10, 2012 6:33 PM
"A good president should say, "I don't believe in abortion. Yet, I'm going to do what the majority of the people want, whether that is stronger regulations on abortion or to leave it like it is. Either way, my job would be to do what the majority of the people would want, not set laws based on my whims.""
Except that's not really right either. We're not a pure democracy, we're a republic. Also, if the "majority of the people" want something that isn't constitutional... well, that's not supposed to be done either.
As for the whole abortion bit: I still don't like it, especially when people use it as their birth control (the multiple time users as mentioned a few times already). But it should be legal. I do dislike the changes that have allowed minors to get them without consent (yet no aspirin or other over the counter drugs).
Miguelitosd at January 10, 2012 6:50 PM
This only reinforces my opinion that most social conservatives are simply pro-life liberals.
It never ceases to astonish me to hear "social conservatives" complain about how government is too big and overreaches, and then turn around and demand that the government insert itself into the most intimate part of our lives. (Liberals are no better--"we should be free" they exclaim and the pull out their own long list of exceptions.)
Joe at January 10, 2012 7:08 PM
What do you get when you force someone who doesn't want a baby to have one?
-----
Illustration of the public mind, from Thirtysomething -- David Clennon, as Miles Drentell: "We are paid well by our clients to assure the public that all will be well if they simply buy our clients' products - and to that public, "history" is last week's People magazine."
This is why you have single-issue voters. I hope I have already shown why this results in abysmally bad choices.
Radwaste at January 10, 2012 7:47 PM
Independent, formerly republican here...
I was driven out by the social conservatives that want to control my life more than the "do-good" democrats with their addiction to regulation. The sad truth about American politics is that political parties, politicians and candidates for political office sell themselves to the highest bidder. Unions, the NRA, the religious right, and all of the individual lobbies that align themselves with the left or right on the political spectrum all demand fealty of the participants. It's just like listening to an interview with a NASCAR driver after a race where he spits out the names of each and every one of his sponsors during a 15 second soundbite; we all know that he does not use, recommend, purchase or consume half of that crap, but who is going to pay to get him in the race if he doesn't pay lip service?
As to the media bias issue; how many questions during the past debate were about the current state of our economy, our fiscal insolvency or about non-existent cuts in spending or reduction of waste, fraud and abuse? Why were the candidates asked about social issues by the panel when every national pol clearly shows that Americans are concerned about Fiscal matters above all others? It's a way to divide the voters. People will get their panties in a twist over single issues and write off a candidate despite the fact that he may be perfectly acceptable in every other regard. There is a liberal/left bias in the media, hence the ratings success of Fox.
Savant-Idiot at January 10, 2012 7:54 PM
Until quite recently oocytes (unfertilized eggs) were not able to be stored. Even now the the preservation rate over a year or so is probably about 60%. The older standard was storage of fertilized ova.
So by this standard -- you would either have octo-moms all over the place or parents charged with conspiracy to commit murder and the actual technicians at fertility clinics charged with murder. Then you have to cover for natural disasters. If Katrina came through and wiped out power for days or weeks and the embryos defrosted and died, would the individual techs or the company be charged with murder?
The same argument applies if you had an accident and rear-ended a pregnant lady in a fog bank. There is no intent and it was a "preventable" accident. Are you going to be charged with manslaughter?
What about any number of drugs that are abortifacients or cause birth defects when taken during pregnancy. A bunch of the the anti-psychotics have that effect. So a woman who takes them not to be crazy and loses her baby will be charged with murder. Or the baby is born with birth defects so she is charged with child abuse? So she quits taking them, goes psychotic and kills or injures someone. So mom is now in jail and gives birth to a healthy baby?
I know -- you are all saying hyperbole. Take the time to google and research these -- out side of the fertilization clinic, these have all happened. I don't have the specific cites offhand.
Every single law and regulation comes with side effects and prosecutorial misconduct.
Jim P. at January 10, 2012 8:39 PM
It never ceases to astonish me to hear "social conservatives" complain about how government is too big and overreaches, and then turn around and demand that the government insert itself into the most intimate part of our lives. (Liberals are no better--"we should be free" they exclaim and the pull out their own long list of exceptions.)
What Joe said.
Kevin at January 10, 2012 10:50 PM
There is a liberal/left bias in the media, hence the ratings success of Fox.
This sentence makes no sense, unless one believes that the most popular news channel in America is somehow not "the media."
Kevin at January 10, 2012 11:07 PM
Clarification about "the media":
When people claim bias one way or another, they usually assume and present some nefarious plot.
That's not necessary. It's a feature of the animal. Just as when a dog lifts a leg on a fire hydrant, he's just being a dog, not a vandal, the Kleenex-selling tactic of maximizing angst by constantly crying about individual helplessness is just what "entertainment" "news" is about.
Bad news sells. Magnified trivia sells. The key word is "sells", because "news" today is paid for by advertising - not by other network operations, as was the case when Murrow and Cronkite were on the air.
Fox, like other programs, is not an information source. Participants in an event, or references, like the actual bill before Congress are.
Something else to realize is that the same event is breathlessly reported by dozens of talking heads. In many cases, only one reporter found anything. The issue doesn't get any worse for the amount of hairspray used to present it.
And you are pandered to relentlessly. Your opinion is sought even as you have no basis for an opinion other than entertainment experiences.
This is so you can be sold your own fears.
Radwaste at January 11, 2012 2:57 AM
. I don't accept that and am not starting with that as a truth to be disproved.
Then, you're on the Truther Bus and deserve the requisite amount of attention.
Rather, I'll look at the numbers:
No, you're looking at _some_ numbers. The ones you like.
According to Arbitron, the most popular talk/news radio shows in the country are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Morning Edition (NPR), and All Things Considered (NPR).
So where are the _numbers_ you refer to?
And where's Broadcast TV in this? Because Broadcast TV is _still_ King Of The Hill. Last time I looked, (When someone was saying that Rush had more listeners than TV News had viewers) Broadcast TV had 25 million viewers on average, and Rush had a _peak_ (which I think has slightly been exceeded now) of 7 million.
Those are _numbers_, and they're useful. Saying you're looking at numbers and then not disclosing them means you're not actually looking at them.
According to yesterday's Nielsen report (Jan. 9), the most popular cable news networks in the country (in order) were Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN (MSNBC and CNN flipped in the demographic 25-44). Fox was by far the champion in every hour bracket. Every single one.
What are the _numbers_ you cite? (And that's presuming that Fox News is somehow separate from the rest of the media - something you didn't prove. FOX's news reporting is slightly to the right of the other channels, they're still far to the left of the national average. Their *opinion people* are what most people cite, and that's a part of it, but not all by far.)
If you accept all of that as being "part and parcel of the Democratic Party," that's your business, but those are the numbers
What numbers? You gave _one age demographic. That's the only _number_ you gave.
And you ignored the single biggest number - Broadcast TV News.
and that's the free market at work. People prefer Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to other radio/TV news choices.
Only if you exclude the single biggest media audience.
They are the mainstream media at this moment in time.
The... Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round, all, day, long.
Unix-Jedi at January 11, 2012 7:33 AM
Radwaste:
When people claim bias one way or another, they usually assume and present some nefarious plot.
Or that's assumed for them.
But it's usually nowhere near that well thought out, it's just a self-sorting selection. The sort that we had to have strong-armed Affirmative Action to deal with elsewhere.
Most of the people would have trouble plotting their way through a Denny's kids-placemat maze.
As you say, it's just the nature of the beast.
Unix-Jedi at January 11, 2012 7:36 AM
"...unless one believes that the most popular news channel in America is somehow not "the media."
The bias pre-dates Fox. When an alternative to the lefty slanted media outlets was finally available on a national syndicate, it swept the ratings illustrating the pent up demand for a middle-right perspective.
Savant-Idiot at January 11, 2012 8:29 AM
In the extreme version you'd go to jail for taking an aspirin or not eating your green veggies while pregnant.
Fox is NOT "middle" anything.
NicoleK at January 11, 2012 11:11 AM
"not eating your green veggies while pregnant"
I didn't. In fact, my nutritionist said if it wasn't cheese-covered, veggies weren't to pass my lips. It was all protein-fat-calcium, with more than one baby in there.
momof4 at January 11, 2012 1:43 PM
Imagine if the Limbaugh position is taken to the extreme, and your kid ended up with Spina Bifida. (Which could happen even if a veggie-free diet is the best one for you. And since common wisdom says to eat leafy greens for the folates, regardless of whether or not its right for -you-) Would you be liable? Your nutritionist?
NicoleK at January 11, 2012 2:21 PM
JosephineMO7, I'm sorry you lost your baby.
That being said, The nut jobs behind this particular initiavte claim life starts at fertilization.
That logic in place it means things like IUDs plan B and simmilar forms of birth cotrol are murder as they result in the 'death' of a fertalized egg.
And as they are using religion as the basis for their craziness, a religious view which claims god interferes in everybodys life everyday in everyway.
And as this proposed legal framework has yet to find a way to detect a difference bettwen a woman who uses BC and a woman like you who had a bad egg, or women with misshappen uteri, or even the odd case where a fertalized egg is rejected due to bad genetics.
Then, yes, under their propsal, and religious beliefs, and their insanity god did kill your baby.
I'm sorry if you found my sacrcasm twords those idiots beliefs offense, but I'm going to continue to use that argument against these sorts of attacks against reproductive rights and science
lujlp at January 11, 2012 6:46 PM
Last time I looked, (When someone was saying that Rush had more listeners than TV News had viewers) Broadcast TV had 25 million viewers on average, and Rush had a _peak_ (which I think has slightly been exceeded now) of 7 million.
Mea culpa - it was 15 & 7. Found my old comments on it.
Still same conclusion, but the correct numbers are, well, important.
Unix-Jedi at January 11, 2012 8:52 PM
"The... Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round, all, day, long."
U-J
Truly one of my favorite songs. Was not expecting to see the lyrics here of all places. Thanks for the flash back.
Michelle at January 14, 2012 1:45 AM
Leave a comment