The Washington Post reports the announcement will happen later today, virtually assuring Romney’s nomination for the Republican opponent to Obama next year.
In addition to being misogynistic, oppressive, antiquated and, quite frankly, unconstitutional, politicians who support anti-abortion laws and seek to defund Planned Parenthood are just not very smart politicians. When someone is elected into an executive position, every decision they make will change and shape the history of a nation. Because of this, it is important to have a vision that goes beyond just being elected.
Mitt Romney, who I believe will win the Republican nomination (but not the election), has said the following regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood:
"Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that." (source)
"Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill [overturning Roe v. Wade]. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in the country, terrific." (source)
So, if you’re elected President Mitt, you’re going to defund Planned Parenthood [which would place 27,000 employees on the unemployment list during record unemployment rates while leaving Planned Parenthood’s 5 million annual clients without a health resource (source)], you’re going to cut social spending, removing other health resources and make abortion illegal, despite population predictions of 9.22 billion people by 2075 (source). On average, Planned Parenthood performs 300,000 abortions a year (source), which would mean almost one million more citizens by the time Mitt would hit his “potential” reelection year. One million more people without access to health resources, without access to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which Romney also wants to phase out, replacing it with privatized choices for those who qualify (source). In addition, Romney seems quite concerned with the rights and recognition of a fetus but disregards the rights and agency of many actual living groups of American citizens. Of the almost million abortions that would not be legally performed in his first term, how will Romney feel when they are undocumented? LBGTQ? FAAB? low-income? The question is rhetorical, because his stance on these “issues” is quite clear - he just doesn’t care.
To put it simply, the vision of the GOP is misogynistic, oppressive, antiquated, and near-sited. Romney’s flip-flopping on the issues reveals that he is more concerned with “winning” than he is with the idealism of creating change in this country. Although the ability for politicians to actually create change is, in my opinion, greatly limited, their greatest ability is in institutionalizing and legitimizing particular ideologies, contributing and participating in a collective consciousness that is then distributed via federal funded curriculums, the media, government funded programs and, lastly, particular mouthpieces (we see extensive evidence with this in the recent political climate: the GOP has allowed and encouraged the anti-woman legislation that has swept across many states). Put simply, they control the stories we are told. Whether I believe in the governments ability to truly create positive change doesn’t really matter - what does matter is that, at the very least, a presidential candidate should have the foresight to create a political narrative that is actually good for the country. And when I say good, I mean that it brings more people together than is drives them apart, gives more rights to people (actual people, not conceptual people) than takes them away, creates more opportunities for equality than inequality and can recognize the very real fact that the decisions they make once elected really do effect the history of a nation.
An op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?” by Robert George and Melissa Moschella, is not as much about sexuality education as it is an overt example of how deeply the socially-conservative agenda is pervading all aspects of our culture.
This is no accident; it is an intentional, widespread campaign against not only sexual and reproductive health, sexuality education, women’s rights, and the inclusion of LGBTQ youth in anti-bullying measures, but also against the rights of young people to dare to want to access information that will make them educated consumers of the world in which they live.
This campaign started gaining momentum with the Tea Party (you know, the folks who applauded “Let’s hear it for letting someone who doesn’t have health insurance die!”), formerly considered to be more on the fringe, but who are now, inexplicably and horrifyingly, gaining legitimacy.
I’d like to highlight several core elements of social conservative propaganda—some of which appear throughout the piece—that continue to be used to manipulate people into thinking there is a concerted effort being made by educators to contribute, as the authors claim, to “the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages:”
Oh my … read the article. Would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this. I am at a loss for words. Once I find them, I will sting them together to form an eloquent argument as to why this kind of mentality is a) dangerous b) unfair c) inaccurate. Thoughts?