Political Suicide....Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

Last night I saw a story in the news regarding the fact that Virginia, Texas & Iowa have introduced legislation mandating Trans-Vaginal Ultrasound procedures be performed on women prior to obtaining an abortion. This is a very invasive procedure that includes vaginal penetration. Now I ask; What if anything, could be a more direct invasion of personal privacy? What could be a more direct violation of our 4th Amendment rights?

www.law.cornell.edu...

FOURTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here are a few articles covering the story;

www.rhrealitycheck.org...

Virginia is poised to send two of the most abhorrent anti-choice bills to Governor Bob McDonnell to sign. The governor, eyes trained on a vice presidential bid, has indicated he will sign at least one if not both of the bills.

The first is a bill requiring the use of trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to a woman obtaining an abortion, the other is an egg-as-person bill. Like other failed "personhood" bills, the Virginia provision would outlaw not only abortion but also forms of hormonal birth control.

Although the Governor has said he will consider the personhood bill he has been clear he would sign the forced ultrasound bill. But let's start calling this what it really is: state sanctioned rape.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

A top Republican legislative leader in Virginia described abortion as a "lifestyle convenience" during the floor debate on a controversial measure to require trans-vaginal ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion.

State Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock) made the comment midday Tuesday as the House of Delegates took up consideration of the ultrasound bill. The bill -- which then passed the House 63 to 36 -- would require any woman seeking an abortion in the state to receive an ultrasound first.

www.msmagazine.com...

VA House Passes Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill

The Virginia state House of Delegates voted 63 to 36 to pass a bill requiring that women seeking abortions undergo a transvaginal ultrasound, which requires a probe being inserted into the vagina. Delegate Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria) criticized the bill, saying "We're talking about inside a woman's body. This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician."

The House also voted down by a vote of 64 to 34 an amendment, which requires the women's consent for the transvaginal ultrasound probe. This means a probe must be inserted into the woman's vagina with or without her consent if she seeks an abortion.

The bill will now go to the state Senate. Republican Governor Bob McDonnell indicated that he will sign the bill.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I just can't believe what I'm seeing. I beginning to wonder if the GOP isn't deliberately alienating as many voters as possible prior to the upcoming Presidential elections. The GOP does realize that women make up about 54% of the voting electorate in presidential years, don't they? So what's with their recent posturing that contraceptives are bad and should be illegal when they know full well that some 99% of women have used them in the past and/or are using them today? And Now, this new push for mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound procedures? Please!

When you couple these GOP initiatives with some of their other recent accomplishments like drug testing welfare recipients, it would appear that the very political party that advocates for getting government out of our personal lives is really quite the opposite and for some reason, they have chosen women and the poor as their primary targets.

While I am neither, a woman or a republican, I can clearly read the writing on the wall and I'd just bet that most women can read it too.

To top it all off, according to all the pundits, Virginia Governor (R) Bob McDonnell, who has publicly stated that he would indeed sign the ultrasound bill, is supposed to be the most favored choice as a vice presidential candidate on the republican ticket. Go figure!

I don't know if the phrase "open unadulterated hypocrisy" is even strong enough to accurately describe what I'm witnessing, but for the GOP to endorse these initiatives while advocating for limited government and personal freedom just blows me away. At this point in time, I would venture to say that no one wants to stick their nose into my bedroom and my personal affairs more than the GOP and I doubt that will be a winning strategy in the upcoming election

Being a democrat I'm all for a fair fight, but if the GOP insist on supporting this type of invasive legislation against the rights of women, then they should expect to be soundly defeated in November.

reply to post by Flatfish


I think not only has the GOP written off the women's vote...but also the gay vote...and the poor (in money) peoples vote...as well as the senior citizen votes.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I think not only has the GOP written off the women's vote...but also the gay vote...and the poor (in money) peoples vote...as well as the senior citizen votes.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's like they're consciously trying to alienate as many voters as possible prior to the election and while some of these groups may be considered by them as too insignificant to matter, that is not the case when it comes to women or seniors. Those two groups make up a huge portion of the voting electorate, and they do indeed get out and vote.

Political suicide, if you ask me. Although, I have to admit that as a democrat, I'm more than happy to see them show their true colors. Especially in an election year.

reply to post by Flatfish

This is a very invasive procedure that includes vaginal penetration.

So is abortion.....which is why the woman is there, after all...

The point of this law is to potentially save the life of the unborn baby. An ultrasound will show the mother that this is a LIFE. At early stages of pregnancy, transvaginal is the only type of ultrasound that will work.

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So, as you can see by my post, I don't think this is an issue that would make me, a conservative woman, feel written off by the GOP.

Just a few stats for context..

In 2008, Obama won 56 percent of the women vote, 13 points more than won by Republican Sen. John McCain

During the 2010 midterm elections women divided evenly for Democratic and Republican House candidates — 49 percent to 49 percent — the best showing for Republicans among women in a national U.S. House vote since 1982.

And this recent data from Pew Research..

A peek inside the presidential poll data

February 13, 2012

– Obama has a 21-point lead over both Romney and Santorum among women. The margin is 59-38 percent. Among men, Obama actually trails by five against Romney and three against Santorum.

That’s a 26-point swing between men and women, and I don’t recall ever seeing a gender gap that large.

blogs.ajc.com...

Obama has more of the women vote than he did in 2008!

Add in every other segment of the US Population that the GOP has demonized...Hispanic-Americans, Democrats, Liberals, Moderates and any Conservative who doesn't think we are the verge of Apocolypse...and the GOP has set themselves up for failure.

Edit to add: The Poor, Seniors, gays...thanks Caladonia I am sure there are more groups that they have hammered to pander to their far right minority.

I don't think it is so much suicide as it is that they moved the party WAY over to the far right when they needed the TP and now they are stuck there, idealogically egging eachother on, continuing to move farther to the right without realizing they have alienated the majority.

In short...the irony...whatever a candidate must say or do to get the GOP nomination amongst a now extremist base...is exactly what will ensure they lose a general election amongst a moderate America.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So as a clearly conservative woman, does the prior statement imply that you're also in favor of women who cannot afford to support a child jumping on the welfare system? or are you just for giving them up for adoption in this case and making this child an added expense to the state or charity run adoption system?

Let's get real here - your hope here is that a woman will be forced to have this procedure done to prevent an abortion, right? Playing on the emotional angle?

The right's position on contraception has been made crystal clear in the previous days - so since contraception is a big no-no, and abortion is a big no-no... this only leads me to think the right is really in favor of a full blown welfare state.

As for the topic of the GOP writing off the women's vote... I think they'd first actually have to CARE about the women's vote before they can be capable of writing it off...

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Maybe military personnel, new recruits and lawmakers should be forced to look at the dead bodies and mangled bodies of children that are the product of the wars they so enthusiasticly march toward.

If a woman is a minor or a victim of rape she should not be required to see an enhanced ultrasound, through a vaginal probe. It's another rape, by a bunch of out of touch politicians pandering to an ideology that they think will get them votes.

I wonder if they "get off" thinking about forcing that probe up a 13 year old's vagina?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by Flatfish

 

This is a very invasive procedure that includes vaginal penetration.

So is abortion.....which is why the woman is there, after all...

The point of this law is to potentially save the life of the unborn baby. An ultrasound will show the mother that this is a LIFE. At early stages of pregnancy, transvaginal is the only type of ultrasound that will work.

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So, as you can see by my post, I don't think this is an issue that would make me, a conservative woman, feel written off by the GOP.

Thanks for the input. I was curious as to how conservative women would view this initiative and whether or not it may affect your vote and while I respect your opinion on the subject, the fact that the woman doesn't have the right to opt out of this procedure seems a little disturbing to me and I would expect that many others would agree. But then, I've been wrong before.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


The point is, the law is to step all over the idea of "freedom from". Are you dense, our constitution is founded upon the prospects of "freedom from" or negative freedom. We as Americans hold and enjoy one of the greatest extents of negative freedom in the world. We have to right to be free from government intervention in many places, including to right to privacy of the body. Your "potentially save lives" argument shifts into a simple ideal of positive freedom, where in which people try to exercise a freedom to, or positive freedom. Positive freedom leads to conflict of freedoms, and the government becomes the entity that chooses which freedoms are rational or not. You want the government to be able to say that abortion isn't rational based upon an emotional appeal. How dare you? You're stepping all over the freedoms that we enjoy just to have some religious ideal upheld. Yes, religious, because as far as I know, the medical and biological community doesn't hold these clusters of cells as viable in the first place until more development has occurred. You're attempting to protect your freedom to live in a land of your own values while limiting everyone's freedom from government intervention into their bodily privacy.

Your political theory is weak, and your argument is based upon emotional and religious foundations. Those always crumble.

Anyways, OP, to answer your question: Maybe. Sometimes I think the American people have the memory of goldfish. The GOP has written these voting blocks off a while ago, yet some will persist in voting for them again. In the long run, they are losing the support of future generations. We are moving far away from social conservatism. Soon, being fiscally conservative won't be enough. Hallelujah for when that day comes, for human progression will win again.

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So as a clearly conservative woman, does the prior statement imply that you're also in favor of women who cannot afford to support a child jumping on the welfare system? or are you just for giving them up for adoption in this case and making this child an added expense to the state or charity run adoption system?

Let's get real here - your hope here is that a woman will be forced to have this procedure done to prevent an abortion, right? Playing on the emotional angle?

The right's position on contraception has been made crystal clear in the previous days - so since contraception is a big no-no, and abortion is a big no-no... this only leads me to think the right is really in favor of a full blown welfare state.

As for the topic of the GOP writing off the women's vote... I think they'd first actually have to CARE about the women's vote before they can be capable of writing it off...

edit on 16-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)

I don't think contraception is a no-no. I'm actually a big fan. :-) There was another thread about the VA bill that SAID the bill prohibited contraception, but when I looked at the bill, that was NOT in there. That seems to be an unfounded rumor. I know Catholics are anti-contraception, but other Christians are not.

Ideally, there wouldn't be unwanted pregnancies, due to contraception, which I already said I am in favor of. Adoption is also an option that is preferable to abortion. We all know how hard it can be for infertile couples to find babies to adopt.

I'm not judging women who have abortions, as it is not my place to do that. However, since I believe life begins at conception, I do think that women who are considering abortion might just have a change of heart after they see that heartbeat.

And of course, I don't think women should have baby after baby to be supported by the welfare system. But I also don't think murdering babies is the answer to that problem.

reply to post by Flatfish

I know there is a strong desire to see Republicans lose, but sometimes we confuse our strong feelings with the nation's.

It seems a little early to know what the impact of the trans-vaginal ultrasounds will be. Clearly, I'm not a woman so I don't have knowledge of the procedures, but I would expect that after a woman has been pregnant for several months, she will have experienced other "invasive" procedures. There might not be any uproar about this from women who aren't already committed anti-Republicans.

Oh and the Catholic thing? It certainly may lose some women for the Republicans, but so far it's cost Obama a lot among Catholics as a group. Has he written off the religious of America? Passions will fade, but right now he's lost about 16% of the Catholic vote which equals about 4% of the national vote. That's a big hit.

Women have been voting more Democrat than men for many years now. I don't know why that would change, but U. S. News has an opinion blog about independent women and the Republicans that it printed in Mid -December. www.usnews.com...

Independent women are less conservative (34 percent) than Independent men (44 percent), and currently favor Republicans by smaller margins than men on the presidential ballot (42 to 35 percent versus 44 to 29 percent) and the generic congressional ballot (34 to 32 percent versus 38 to 26 percent among men).
By expanding its appeal to this critical cohort, the Republican Party may be able to sweep into office a new generation of leaders that will control the country's public policy machinery for some time to come.

So what's with their recent posturing that contraceptives are bad and should be illegal when they know full well that some 99% of women have used them in the past and/or are using them today?

Some source has been misleading you. They slipped you the idea that Republicans think contraceptives should be illegal. You should mark that source as "questionable" from here on in.

And sure, there are groups that tend to vote primarily for a particular party; blacks, the poor, small business owners, fundamentalists, etc. Most people are part of more than one group, sometimes groups that tend to vote for different parties. Are they written off by the other party? Some groups come close to being written off, but each party puts its resources where they think they can sway the most voters.

I don't know, Flatfish. I admire your passion and drive, but . . .

reply to post by negativenihil


Boot straps man, Boot straps.

Also, you're going to scare her away with that Baphomet Avatar...though she should be afraid of the washington statue and the whole occult symbolism of the state as well...but I digress.

Boot straps. Pull them hard enough, and one can raise a child with an empty water bottle and a left boot, size thirteen.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

The point is, the law is to step all over the idea of "freedom from". Are you dense,

No, I am not DENSE. I am, however, in favor of saving the lives of unborn innocents.

I know that is not popular. But too bad.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Maybe military personnel, new recruits and lawmakers should be forced to look at the dead bodies and mangled bodies of children that are the product of the wars they so enthusiasticly march toward.

If a woman is a minor or a victim of rape she should not be required to see an enhanced ultrasound, through a vaginal probe. It's another rape, by a bunch of out of touch politicians pandering to an ideology that they think will get them votes.

I wonder if they "get off" thinking about forcing that probe up a 13 year old's vagina?

edit on 16-2-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure about the other states but here in Texas, I think this actually constitutes "statutory rape," at least according to this statute;

www.cga.ct.gov...

Texas
§ 22. 011
Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14

Two to 20 years in prison

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Ok, good, you're not dense. I had to do that so that I may say this now. You've placed yourself in a situation where in which you shouldn't be able to say that you support any small government initiatives without speaking out of both sides of your mouth. With your words, you have given the state untold powers, and if you were a judge you would have set precedent that would have had moral and social consequences in the future that span way beyond the rights to abortion. These rights will stem into bodily privacy rights, that go far beyond what you CAN imagine. It doesn't matter if the argument was BASED upon saving lives, the precedent sticks "in certain situations, where the interest of life is in question, humans do not maintain a right to bodily privacy." Think of what that means for tracking chips, implanted listening devices, and implanted recording devices. The future is coming soon, and technological advancement is a beautiful thing...however, it can be twisted, even over an issue as tiny as abortion.

Look further in, be forward looking. There are consequences far greater than those you can see today.

Oh, and I still don't agree with the abortion argument, but I settled that in my last post. This post is just to give you a tiny glimpse at how precedent speaks. A TINY glimpse.

Republicans look at people as individuals.

They don't write off or pander to groups.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Anyways, OP, to answer your question: Maybe. Sometimes I think the American people have the memory of goldfish. The GOP has written these voting blocks off a while ago, yet some will persist in voting for them again. In the long run, they are losing the support of future generations. We are moving far away from social conservatism. Soon, being fiscally conservative won't be enough. Hallelujah for when that day comes, for human progression will win again.

I absolutely agree with your assessment! Like I said before, I am not a woman, I've never been pregnant or faced with the decision of abortion, but just the idea that someone else has the right to insert something into my body against my will gives me the creeps and I can't even begin to imagine where legislation like that may lead. Talk about slippery slopes!

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Ok, good, you're not dense. I had to do that so that I may say this now. You've placed yourself in a situation where in which you shouldn't be able to say that you support any small government initiatives without speaking out of both sides of your mouth. With your words, you have given the state untold powers, and if you were a judge you would have set precedent that would have had moral and social consequences in the future that span way beyond the rights to abortion. These rights will stem into bodily privacy rights, that go far beyond what you CAN imagine. It doesn't matter if the argument was BASED upon saving lives, the precedent sticks "in certain situations, where the interest of life is in question, humans do not maintain a right to bodily privacy." Think of what that means for tracking chips, implanted listening devices, and implanted recording devices. The future is coming soon, and technological advancement is a beautiful thing...however, it can be twisted, even over an issue as tiny as abortion.

Look further in, be forward looking. There are consequences far greater than those you can see today.

Oh, and I still don't agree with the abortion argument, but I settled that in my last post. This post is just to give you a tiny glimpse at how precedent speaks. A TINY glimpse.

I disagree with your leap here. Vehemently. When you are consenting to abortion you have already consented to having your body "violated". It is impossible to abort a baby without approaching the vagina.

I cannot in any respect see how that translates to the same thing as implanting chips or other devices into anyone's bodies.

If we were talking about killing babies that were already born, I'm pretty sure we would both be on the same side of the issue. There are many, many people who believe that life is life, whether it is before or after birth. Many states have laws that when you kill a pregnant woman you are taking 2 lives. We can't have it both ways.

You and I are not going to agree on this, it is clear. But I am not going to say that because we disagree you are a heartless murderer, and you should not assume that I want to give up freedoms.

I don't want to go back and forth all day with you on this, but I am curious: when do you think life begins? And where do we draw the line for when abortion is no longer an scceptable option?....at 3 months of pregnancy? 6 months of pregnancy? at birth?

My final point will be this:
The reason abortion is such a polarizing issue is because it comes down to: does a woman's right to choose trump the life of an unborn baby? Obviously, here in the US, we have said YES, a woman's wishes absolutely does trump the life of that baby. That's why abortion is legal.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Anyways, OP, to answer your question: Maybe. Sometimes I think the American people have the memory of goldfish. The GOP has written these voting blocks off a while ago, yet some will persist in voting for them again. In the long run, they are losing the support of future generations. We are moving far away from social conservatism. Soon, being fiscally conservative won't be enough. Hallelujah for when that day comes, for human progression will win again.

I absolutely agree with your assessment! Like I said before, I am not a woman, I've never been pregnant or faced with the decision of abortion, but just the idea that someone else has the right to insert something into my body against my will gives me the creeps and I can't even begin to imagine where legislation like that may lead. Talk about slippery slopes!

Right!

And the fact that this is a medical procedure that isn't medically necessary, and that it's a medical procedure that is being used to enforce and ideology is abhorrent. It flagrant punishment and proselytization.

What a crock When a woman is going for a abortion odds are she will have something inserted into her vagina. If they are going to be getting jittery at the ultra sound how are they gonna take the actual abortion? This article sounds like a bit of spin against those big mean republicans. Hell when Obama care takes affect we are all gonna take sumthin in the ole anus.... But seeing how people view abortion as just a simple medical procedure it's no wonder they are flippin out over a "invasive ultrasound". Sounds soo scary don't it???