The Tea Party... Again

One of the things that's really struck me about the Tea Party in the past month is their stance on abortion. In the past, abortion has not generally been the factor that comes to the forefront of a race, and I've noticed that more and more lately, Democrats and Republicans seem to take a similar stance: that abortion is okay under certain circumstances, or that they just don't want to touch Roe v. Wade at all. Mostly, it doesn't come up, because things like the Iraq war, the economy, the job market, all take precedent and social issues like abortion and gay marriage seem to take a backseat. (Not that they necessarily should).

But the Tea Party is bringing out the pro-life guns, and anticipating shooting down several pro-choice Republicans. (Whether this happens remains to be seen; I write this blog entry the night before election day). Of course, abortion isn't the main issue that the Tea Party is running on, but their (rather vocal) stance on it definitely speaks to their extreme conservatism. And I'd have to say, I feel like I've heard more about abortion from them than I have from the Democrats or the Republicans in past elections.

An article in the Washington Examiner discusses how Tea Party candidates beat out several high profile Republicans in the primaries this spring--Republicans who were pro-choice. While the defeats weren't only about abortion, I've heard this tune before: that the pro-choice stance of these republicans was most certainly a factor in their defeat.

The Examiner reports that on the other side, the Democrats seem to be getting a lot of money from pro-choice groups who likely feel threatened by this new lineup of candidates. This article, by a pro-life website, reported that even Planned Parenthood was caught off-guard, and then worried, by the growing popularity of the Tea Party and its candidates. The Democrats have noted the extreme social stances of Tea Party candidates, and have in some instances used these views to push the candidates "off-message" (of their original platform of frustration with "Obamacare" and the recession) says this article at The Associated Press.

According to the same article, some Tea Party members have backed off from their original extreme viewpoints. One, Ken Buck of Denver, "endorsed a state constitutional amendment that would give fetuses constitutional rights, then withdrew his support after doctors and lawyers pointed out it would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception." The same article highlights some distressing views that these candidates have not just on abortion, but about gay marriage and civil rights.

Sharron Angle, one of the Tea Party's candidates, expressed her views opposing abortion even in the face of rape or incest, stating that "God has a plan." Click here to listen. She also said in another interview that if a 13 year old girl was raped by her father, that girl should be counseled to have the baby. Christine O'Donnell stated that she only supports abortion if the "life, not health" of the mother is in danger. So basically even if your health is at risk, you should still have the baby, because you're not going to die from it.

It seems to me that these views are giving more rights to the fetus than to the woman, and I still can't get away from the impression that they are trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

--Alexandra

The Tea Party & Abortion

It is quite possible that one of the reasons Tea Party candidates are doing so well against republicans is their pro-life stance. There were already relatively few pro-choice republicans, and it seems that they keep getting knocked down by their Tea Party opponents. Though the abortion debate often takes a backseat to many other issues (who wants to talk about abortion when the Iraq war is on the table?) one writer at The New Republic argues that perhaps right-to-life politics plays a larger role than we think it does.

There is a large potential for the non-conservatives to overlook how zealous extreme right-wingers can get about abortion--even to the point where it has the potential to overthrow a candidate. What pro-choicers also fail to consider, in my opinion, is the language used by Tea Party and reactionary Republicans. They bandy terms about like "murder," "genocide," and "death panels" (we can thank Sarah Palin for that one) and zealously crow about having religion on their side. It can seem daunting and difficult to argue for the right to choice when someone else is making it sound like you're arguing for the right to choose murder.

In keeping with what I would call this "sensationalism" attached to the anti-abortion argument, one Tea Party candidate ran an ad that was so graphic in its portrayal of aborted fetuses, that Youtube banned it from their site. This particular candidate is running on a mostly anti-abortion platform, but instead of calling herself pro-life, she calls for the end of "child killing."

Wait a moment, now. Child killing? Using the word "child" instead of "fetus" is a really transparent rhetoric strategy--nobody wants to kill children, of all people. Her argument is that she had two abortions, and she was lied to when she was told that her fetuses were not babies. But the part that really gets me is that she calls abortion an "abuse of women". I would argue that removing a woman's right to choose is the real abuse--it's abuse of a woman's body, because it is allowing someone else to tell a woman what to do with her body for the next nine months, taking away her control over her own body. There are so many things women can't do during pregnancy, so many limitations that are put on her life, that even if a woman wanted to give that baby up for adoption, she'd be giving up almost a year of her life because someone else made the decision for her.

Also, this candidate said she had two abortions. I may be reaching here, but I find myself wondering why her opinion didn't change after she had her first abortion. Why did it take a second one to push her over the edge? I wonder about her story, because I wonder what prompted her to have a second abortion, and then to decide that it's child killing and wrong. I don't argue that the emotional trauma of an abortion can change a woman's opinion of the practice, or at least her opinion of whether or not it was the right decision for her--but... why did it take two, in this case? Which makes me feel like this is more of a political ploy, and less of a personal story.

I think it's manipulative of this candidate to call it "child killing" and the "abuse of women". Because I really don't think it matters what any given person thinks of a fetus. What matters is that a few people cannot tell the masses what they are or are not entitled to do with their bodies. These candidates could argue for better counseling, or better contraceptives, or better sex education, but instead they manipulate the constituency with scary images and sound bites.

Usually I try to keep my opinions to a minimum when I'm posting here, but I think it's pretty clear that I am unimpressed with this woman's campaign and that I find people like her extremely scary. I thought we came to America all those hundreds of years ago to get away from people trying to oppressively run our lives. I would love it if the need for abortion was eliminated--but I most certainly want the option to be available should I, or anyone else, need it.

--Alexandra