(no subject)

[ebonlock]

via Give Up Blog

The Alan Guttmacher Institute has come up with new data on states which are likely to restrict abortion if Roe is overturned.

It's interesting, and less completely a Red/Blue phenomenon like my other maps although some results I find totally unlikely. For instance, the AGI seems to think that DC is "moderately likely" to ban abortion, which is total and complete BS. Also for some bizarre reason Kansas and Tennessee are not completely red. WTF?

WTF indeed, I mean we are talking about two states whose inhabitants wish to force children to turn their backs on Darwinism in the name of the Invisible Sky Wizard.

Amanda at Pandagon muses on what right wing villain archetype is being addressed by this insane need by the GOP to control women's bodies:

But really, if you think about it, women who live independent lives, especially educated urban-dwelling single women, are the perfect right wing villians, because not only does our existence feed into the “latte liberal” stereotype (For the record, I hate lattes. Just saying.), but it also provokes deeper, more historically grounded anxieties about women who live free without being controlled by a man.

And of course, the symbol of that control is pregnancy and who gets to determine when a woman’s body is used to make a baby.

So there it is, in a nutshell–the perfect anxiety-provoking stereotype for the 21st century. Pretty, smart, independent, dare I say sassy women sneering down our pert noses at the brutish undereducated red state men, taking all the high-paying glamorous jobs (I wish) and then, as the icing on the cake, gleefully aborting their babies! Clearly, we need to be punished and George Bush and his new Supreme Court nominee are just the men to bitch slap an entire generation of mostly-mythological women.

No More Mr. Nice Blog chimes in on Alito and what should be the Dem response:

I share Sam Rosenfeld's Alito fatalism -- especially after seeing the results of yesterday's Washington Post poll, which said that a majority of Americans favor the nomination and an even bigger majority believe Alito won't vote to overturn Roe.

This is when I ask: What would Republicans have done in this situation if they were Democrats? Here's what I think they would have done: Particularly after the release of Alito's 1985 letter denying that the Constitution protects abortion, they'd have deployed several members of the party to go out and say, point blank, "Alito, if he's confirmed, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade" -- "will vote to overturn," with no ambiguity. It would have simple, it would have been easily digested by the TV-viewing public -- and it would have been denounced as over the line by Alito's defenders. Thus, it would have been news, and it could have framed the debate, because the public doesn't want Roe overturned.

This would have worked only if the party refused to back down. Alito's supporters would have tried to make the bluntness of the statement into the issue. This is where discipline would have come in: The statement shouldn't have been made by top leaders of the party, but those leaders should have refused to distance themselves from it; they should have defended the honor and integrity of whoever had made the remarks. And, after the first wave of criticism, yet more Democrats should have said the same thing. Alito's own words, plus a list of the groups and individuals praising him, would be enough to make the statement highly plausible.

Do something bold so what you're doing leaps to the top of the nightly newscast; strike first; keep it simple; stand your ground after taking your shot; declare that the opposition is not just wrong, but the enemy of reasonable Americans -- that's what Republicans do. And it works.

Gosh it's been a while since I read the words "bold" and "Democrats" in the same piece. Would that someone in my party would take this advice to heart. *sigh*