« | »

Clift: Fewer Dems Means Fewer Abortions

Which is the more surprising — that Newsweek is still around, or that Ms. Clift is still writing for them? (And we won’t even mention the cost of buying either of them.)

Women, Shwomen

The number of females in Congress has never been proportional, and will be even worse after this election.

By Eleanor Clift
October 27, 2010

For all the ballyhoo about this being “the year of the woman,” the number of women in Congress looks certain to decline for the first time since 1978.

Hasn’t just about every year since 1972 been "the year of the woman" according to the Democrat media complex that we call the mainstream media?

Women lawmakers are dominantly Democratic, and a lot of them are in tough races. More Republican women have broken through as serious candidates than ever before, but there aren’t enough of them to make up for the anticipated losses among Democrats.

But, of course, if there were more Republican women candidates, Ms. Clift would be thrilled.

There are now 56 Democratic women in the House and 17 Republicans, with 13 Democratic women in the Senate and 4 Republicans. That adds up to 90 seats occupied by women out of the 535 seats in Congress, far less, of course, than their share of the population. After the election, there will likely be eight to 10 fewer women lawmakers.

It’s clear that we need some kind of quote system and some kind of affirmative action program to put more women in Congress.

Maybe they should just be given some seats without having to get any votes. (From a population where women are in the majority, by the way.)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent out a fundraising plea to underscore what a setback these results would be in terms of women’s leadership in a body that is still overwhelmingly male. (The prime example being her own likely dethroning by John Boehner.)…

So this "news article" is just a slight re-write of a Nancy Pelosi press release. That’s good to know. But certainly not much of a surprise.

And, yes, we certainly should not allow Mr. Boehner get Ms. Pelosi’s job as speaker, just because his party will be in the majority. That isn’t far at all. 

This year, while Republicans tout their newly visible women candidates, only four of the 46 “Young Guns” the GOP showcases as leaders are women.

How true. Goodness knows we have heard practically nothing about Republican women like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Christine O’Donnell, Linda McMahon, Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina.

Candidates that Democrats and media mavens like Ms. Clift like to call the ‘B and W-Words.’

But it’s more than a numbers game that worries the traditional pro-choice women’s groups that have been at the forefront of the battle to increase the representation of women in Congress. It’s the potential impact on policy and hard-won legislative battles where they fear there will be damage. “Women members are more likely to understand the importance and relevance of the women’s health agenda, and having fewer of them would have an impact,” says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin.

Look at the photo at the top which Newsweek ran with this piece. Which of those candidates would understand the importance and relevance of the ‘man’s agenda’? (By the way, notice how peculiar that phrase even sounds – the ‘man’s agenda.’)

By that measure, a Congress that has more Republicans and fewer women is double trouble, since women are supposed to bring a different perspective, particularly on women’s health issues. But unlike ’92, when progressive women led the charge, this year’s stars are socially conservative women, and they are testing the thesis that women vote differently—i.e., on the liberal side, because of their gender. Women have been the keepers of the flame certainly on reproductive issues, and their reduced numbers will be felt most keenly in the area of abortion rights.

The addition of a class of young, smart, conservative women Republicans will add heft and visibility to the pro-life agenda…

Notice that all of Ms. Clift’s talk about "women’s health issues" finally boils down to the right to get taxpayer money to kill babies. Which of course is the real reason Ms. Clift put pen to paper.

Of course nothing defines being a woman like the insistence on the right to kill your baby in the womb. Anyone who doubts that couldn’t possibly be a real woman, no matter what her gender is.

What exactly a less-female, more-conservative Congress might do turns out to be quite extensive from a policy perspective. Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood’s vice president for public policy, has compiled a long list where a Republican-led Congress can erode hard-won gains. At the top is Title X of the Health and Human Services budget, the only federally funded program that provides family-planning counseling and access to contraception in the country. After being flatlined for eight years during the Bush administration, it got a $10 million increase last year. “We can definitely see a Republican Congress not providing any increase or cutting the program,” Rubiner said. “That’s the one we worry about a lot.”

Pro-choice groups expect a return of the so-called Stupak amendment, even though Democrat Bart Stupak retired from Congress. It would prevent any health-care plan participating in the exchanges that will be created from offering abortion coverage

Which was supposed to be guaranteed by Mr. Obama’s executive order, which was part of the ‘healthcare reform’ deal. But never mind that.

Indiana Republican Mike Pence, a rising star in the GOP, would gain new energy for his effort to defund Planned Parenthood, which he believes advances an immoral and partisan agenda by providing abortion services…

Why is Planned Parenthood funded by the US taxpayer? Why shouldn’t this be put to a vote?

Republicans will owe their new power to a relentless focus on the deficit and debt, but they will want to take back some of the gains Democrats have made on social issues. There will be fewer liberal women at the table to push back, a turnabout that is troubling to the old guard and signals the advent of a new kind of gender politics, where women can’t be taken for granted as the progressive bulwark they once were.

So the sum total of Ms. Clift’s message is: ‘Don’t vote for Republicans. They will try to cut taxpayer funding for killing babies. And there won’t be enough liberal (real) women to stop the evil conservative (fake) women.’

That is great selling point, isn’t it? But it would seem to be all that the Democrats have left.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, October 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Clift: Fewer Dems Means Fewer Abortions”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    the traditional pro-choice women’s groups

    The use of traditional and pro-choice in the same sentence would be funny if it weren’t about killing babies.

    How any female can call themselves a woman with this belief is so beyond me. But then liberalism itself is beyond me – like shooting yourself in the foot simply to get sympathy – how stupid is that?

    God Help America
    A Proud American Infidel

    • Adam Moreira says:

      It may also have to do with the thought that it’s not the government’s business (so long as taxpayer money isn’t used).

      Case in point: What Constitutional authority do the feds have to regulate abortion procedures?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Government’s are organized among men specifically to protect the interest of Life, among others, according to our Founders.

      Whether life is defines as such at whatever phase of a pregnacy is irrelevant and futile to this discussion, because even if it were delegated as a state’s rights issue, everyone basically agrees on late term abortions except the kook baby-killing fringe left. So the government is going to be a regulator of this, no matter what, whether you think it’s their Constitutional authority or not. Funny how you’re only concerned with that authority on a few issues while your strangely silent on so many other obvious ones.

      Epic fail again, Adam.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      @Tranquil – but government should never have to be in the business of legislating morality.

      As for other issues, I simply haven’t been here long enough to see them all.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Legislating morality? False premise. We’re talking about protecting the legal right for the unborn to be allowed the opportunity to live when they haven’t their own voice to weigh in on the choice to kill them.

      If you shoot someone in the face the government vows it’s going to regulate the rest of your life heavily. Is that protecting the right to life or legislating morality.

      No the government is in the business of legislating morality in other ways. They tell us what we should eat. They tell us we need to destroy the lifestyles we’ve worked hard to build because of this lie that we’re killing the planet. The socialists literally want to control and dictate everything about what’s acceptable in society, yet abortion – no, they aren’t allowed to do a thing about that.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      And the nanny-state police should be told to go pound sand.

      However, as I see it, politically, the government should not have a say about a woman’s body…provided that the woman also doesn’t ask for taxpayer dollars to terminate a pregnancy that isn’t the result of a criminal act or wouldn’t kill the mother if carried to term.

      However, it may be just me, but I don’t see them on the same level (regulation of a woman’s body and killing a person post-birth).

    • tranquil.night says:

      Of course you give favor to the womans right to regulate “her body.” Youre not an aborted pregnancy, nor do I assume are you a woman who would have to wrestle with perhaps a young an impulsive decision on her conscience for the rest of her life.

      But thank you. I enjoy learning about your feelings and beliefs and how you think they apply to government.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Adam, dear Adam – given that at day 1 of conception – the newly created person has 23 chromosomes from the Mother (i.e. not the Mother) and 23 chromosomes from the Father (i.e. not the Father) – from day 1 of conception it is a totally new individual PERSON – and given that from day 17 the heart of the new Person is beating – this indeed a totally new living PERSON. Thus anything, anyone does to end the totally new PERSON’s life – is murder. Any way you cut it. The issue of viability – come on – how many of us even today could survive on our buck naked own??? Be truthful – people grow and raise your food – even processing it into usable forms for you, people create the cloth and then make your clothing for you, make your building products and then make your home and so on and so on. YOU can not survive without other people – how is an unborn PERSON any different?

      It is not a woman’s control over her own body – this is a totally new PERSON not her. If this whole abortion issue had been left at between a woman & her Doctor – maybe I would bite my tongue and let live. But the rabid, insane self destructive left continues to pound the issue with drivel and lies such as you have posted here.

      And the eventual end is NOT federal funding of abortion – You all who believe that are fooling yourselves. The eventual end is Government deciding who lives and who dies and the sad thing is that the Obamanation of Obamacare is the foot in the door for both ends.

      Not in my America, if I can help it – Remember in NOvember – Take Back America

      God Help America
      A Proud American Infidel

  2. JohnMG says:

    Eleanor Clift is a woman?

    L I L B

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    “Fewer Dems Means Fewer Abortions”

    If only Dems were aborted………..that has a ring to it.

  4. Right of the People says:

    “By that measure, a Congress that has more Republicans and fewer women is double trouble, since women are supposed to bring a different perspective,”

    We’ve seen the Botox Queen’s woman’s perspective since Jan 2007 and it ain’t pretty. It’s time to get back to having someone who actually loves this country making the decisions.

    Vote early and often!

  5. MZmaj7 says:

    Good thing they had all of those females on the Supreme Court to advance the “women’s health agenda” in 1973.

  6. platypus says:

    Clift says, “Republicans will owe their new power to a relentless focus on the deficit and debt, but they will want to take back some of the gains Democrats have made on social issues.”

    Uh, not to nitpick but Repubs owe their new power to the tea parties. Without them, the GOP at best is a Bush 43 GOP. It only took the people six years to be fed up with his way. As far as the social gains, the GOP will want to take back ALL of the libtard social gains, which are more accurately described as socialism gains. Again, the tea parties will force the GOP to operate America 3.0 for the next two years. When 2012 rolls around, we can relax a little because President Palin will take over the front line.

    Make no mistake about it – we are never doing this again. When we get this lib lunacy stuffed back in the box and welded shut, we will terminate with extreme prejudice anybody who tries to set it loose again.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Thank you platypus – I was beginning to feel that I was the only one who wants this ‘social justice,’ ‘wealth redistribution,’ and ‘equality’ b***s*** stuffed back into a lead lined box and welded shut forever in America. I want a shoot to kill order on drug dealers and gang bangers, I want the possession (use of, is automatic life) of gun during a felony – go to jail – no plea bargain ever. And I want policitos such as Obama (ok start small, like one of the nutcases Kucinich, Paul or Grayson) tried for treason. The Constitution is the foundation of America – any, no ALL legislation that is un-Constitutional should 1) be immediately void and 2) the sponsors should be tried for treason.

      I am sick and tired of watching my beloved and great country ripped apart in an insane attempt to turn it into some 3rd World socialist cesspool. You want that kind of living – MOVE – and oh by the way, other than the dictatorships – a lot of the countries in the middle (squishy socialism) are moving right as fast as they can). This is America where a Judeo-Christian foundation of Creator bestowed Rights have existed, will exist and always will exist (no matter what some slick empty suit says or does not say) that protect our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (and oh, btw richest politicians in the World – what right is it of yours to give a damn or control if my pursuit of happiness includes ‘Grab that cash with both hands
      And make a stash’? ). Most especially when that’s what you’ve done?!? Lying hypocrites.

      Bite me and may you rot in hell – after we try you and send you to jail – where you all belong.

      God Help America
      A Proud American Infidel

« Front Page | To Top
« | »