The Ugliest Post I’ve Seen In Quite Some Time
I’ve been riding Jane Hamsher pretty hard lately, as she is the poster girl for that brand of hardcore lefty who thinks that anyone who disagrees with her principles is a slug. Case in point, this piece of vitriolic bile:
South Dakota has now passed a law banning abortion with no exception for rape or incest thanks to angry, cowardly men (and women) like the one pictured above, whom TBogg dubs [slur related to size of genitalia deleted]. TBogg has more on this fellow most women wouldn’t f*** on a bet (and boy is he going to make us pay) who was instrumental in this law’s passage.
As Digby says, enough already with this bullsh** about how much they value life.
Wow, that’s truly persuasive reasoning – juvenile namecalling, profane ranting, and slurs based on personal appearance. And to think people don’t agree with you!
Hamsher’s problem on this issue can be found in her post title: Keep Your Legs Together In South Dakota. Why not, Jane, just say practice safe, responsible sex in all 50 states? This isn’t about exceptions for rape and incest, or your post wouldn’t have that title. It’s about abortion as a form of birth control, and that is what a big chunk of America is opposed to.
Most people would see the South Dakota law (still not in affect, until signed by the Governor, though he very well may sign it) as too extreme because it doesn’t have the outs for rape and incest. Without a doubt, though, the majority of Americans see the view of fanatics such as Hamsher as extreme; as she has shown time and again, she will accept no restrictions – none – on abortions – not a ban on partial-birth abortions, not parental or spousal notification, nothing.
Such extremism tends to bring out extremist sentiments from the opposition. If there is a middle ground on abortion – and I’m not sure there is – it won’t be found, I’m quite certain, in obscenity-laced rants and name-calling. Hamsher’s definition of abortion, as shown clearly from her post title, is equivalent to the right to be free from responsibility in the area of sexual conduct. That’s not going to play, and she can rant about it all day long and accomplish nothing more than to harden the opposing sentiments…
Part of the problem is that partial birth abortion, which is one type of abortion (and the type of abortion most disfavored by Americans), is seen by many as inseparable from the right to abortion itself.
I recently came across an online poll on MSM (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546808/?GT1=7756). The question posed is this “Do you think South Dakota’s legislation will lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade?” the choices are “Yes, the Supreme Court is different than it was several years ago and it will be sympathetic to the issue” or “No. The measure will suffer the same fate as many other abortion laws: It will be declared unconstitutional.” Thats it. Either the partial birth abortion law will be struck down or Roe will be overturned. The drafter of the poll didn’t even consider the possibility that the Supreme Court will simply uphold this law without ruling on Roe.
I can’t pick on them for that poll. The South Dakota law is dealing with all abortions, not just partial-birth abortions.
But overall, I agree there is an all-or-nothing aspect that drives the loudest screamers on this issue. I think most people don’t want abortion banned for the most part, as the South Dakota law would have it, but neither are they keen on making it some sacred right available to the woman right up until birth or saying that children should be free to get abortions without notifying their parents. I don’t think there’s any real middle ground as far as the principle goes – either it’s a human life or its not. But it seems to me that most people have scraped out a practical middle ground to live by.
Technically speaking, the pill would be outlawed.
It does not stop fertilization, just the zygote from implanting. It is a two week abortion.
This was an inconvenient action by SD, but also within their rights. I much prefer the proven method of nibbling at the margins, particularily given the years of success which made a fertile climate to get Alito on the SC.
I subscribe to the European system which does allow for first trimester abortions, but becomes draconian beyond that point.
The debate should have been easy, win on partial birth abortions, stretch it to include 3rd trimester, and let the country debate between 1st and 2nd trimester.
I am pro-life and would practice what I preach, but I also have to accept that abortion will always be a choice.
If you are interested in hearing how third trimester abortions are very rare (less than 1 in 250 abortions) and the extensive judicial research which was ignored by the Bush administration’s brief, you need go no further than today’s issue of slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2136719/
What difference does it make if they’re rare? If you’re against third-trimester abortions, the fact that they’re rare won’t change your mind.
True, but the rarity suggests that the issue is overblown — given all of the attention which third trimester abortions has received, one would think that it is much more common than it actually is.
Well, since they’re so uncommon, and so vastly unpopular with the electorate, then surely we can at least ban them without substantially harming the pro-choice movement, right?…after all, 249 out of 250 abortions could proceed as scheduled…
1 in 250, eh? After a quick Google survey of stats, it look like roughly 1.3 million abortions are performed annually.
That 1 in 250 equates to 5200 late term abortions. I’d have to consider myself pro-choice for 1st term abortions, but that 5200 is inexcusable.
Correct, you could ban third trimester abortions without harming the pro-choice movement. However, that begs the question of whether you should ban them.
I don’t buy into the assumption that most (or even many) women who get a third term abortion do so cavalierly or easily. My suspicion is that the majority of the time, the abortion takes place late in the pregnancy because of health issues of the mother or the child. My wife’s amniocentesis was well into her second trimester — if, for example, we learned that the child had spina bifida, we probably would have aborted the fetus. Not much of a window until the first day of the third trimester to make that decision. Anyone who claims to have the moral authority to insist that a mother carry a baby with a disease like spina bifida to term is unlikely to have faced that situation himself.
I believe that in a great number of instances, it is a gut-wrenching decision for the mother, and I believe that it should be the judgment of the mother, and not the state, which prevails.
I feel that this issue is not 100% about abortion. As much within our culture, it is also about power. In my opinion, this issue especially impassions the far left women’s groups because 1) they feel it is very personal and 2) they feel no one should be dictating to or controlling women in any manner. Allowing someone else to prevent them from controlling their lives in any manner amounts to nothing but submission and they feel that women have been held down for too long. This is especially true if it is a man doing the perceived controlling.
This is why women’s “rights” are at the pinnacle of the left’s “hierarchy of rights”. Their drive to prevent anyone or any person/event from controlling women lives in any manner relegates that person/event to a lower level on their “hierarchy of rights”. In this case, the person is an unborn child thus the child has no rights. Women’s rights prevail over all other rights including parents. Remember men can kill an unborn child and be charged with murder but women can not. This shows how low men are on the left’s “hierarchy of rights”. The far left women’s groups are not about equality, they are after absolute power and abortion is one element of that power.
Anyone who reads this site on a consistent manner knows I am vehemently opposed to abortion. Nobody should have the ability to kill an unborn child. Notice I did not use the “right” in that sentence. Third trimester abortions are one of the most heinous acts in this culture and should be prevented.
Just to be clear, peter, unlike our good friend Muffin here, I’m not arguing in this case whether abortion is or isn’t an easy decision or whether it should be legal or not…I am quite certain that abortion is, in the majority of cases, a heartwrenching situation for the woman, and my position is stated elsewhere. My point here is the unbelievably tone-deaf screeching from Jane Hamsher and other pro-choice advocates who continue to treat this issue as if it were the paramount concern of the Republic, and my belief that they, in fact, hurt their own cause because of it…
Well, I don’t know anything about Jane Hamsher except for the excerpt above, but I would agree that — like Randall Terry on the other side — she probably does her cause much more harm than good.
I moniter firedoglake and the Hamster almost daily because its heartening to see recorded and transcribed, daily, the kind of over-the-top hysteria, that when exposed to the general American public as these loud and loony lefties take control of the Dem party and its message completely, should keep the Dems out of power forever, regardless of how badly the Republicans screw up.
Hamster represents the Kos/Moveon ‘netroots’ scortched bullying at its worst. Their childish rants, full of 3rd grade level insults and gratuitous us of profanity (really, you have to read her stuff daily to get full appreciation- its like a 3rd grader relishing the taste of the word “fu**” and using it at every opportunity to get a thrill- Jane uses it to and other scatological and genitalia-related profanity to drive home the full weight of her pithy wit and wisdom) come off as insane diatribes- you can almost see the spittle on the moniter, its so rabid.
Her stated aim, and one she hews to daily, is to destroy the Republican ‘brand’ the way she claims the Republicans have destroyed the Dems; painting them as high-spending, America-hating, gun-confiscating, gay-loving, religion-hating socialists, which of course is unfair. However painting Jane and her ilk with this brush is very accurate, actually. She (and Kos and MyDD and Ameriblog and others) daily post blaring any negative story they think can damage the Republicans the same way, and in the most hysterical, rabid, profanity laced manner possible. If a minister loses his congregation for adultery, this ‘news’ story is trumpeted as “bobo’s world” and evidence of the empty morality of any Republican. This is just an example, you have to read their sites daily for a mulititude of examples.
The problem is, firedoglake is so wack that only a true believer would read it, so the Hamster-girl is never going to damage the Republican brand by being such a wack-job that only true believers, who hate the Reps anyway, are going to read her, let alone give her any credence. Glenn Reynolds has the power to actually turn an ambivalent centrist/independant voter (are there any left?) around with reasonable, sane and sober argument. Jane the Hamster only has the power to further damage the “brand” she’s defending. No one is going to take her seriously.
The root problem among leftblahgerz is a major penis envy over Rathergate & Easongate. They want their own so they hype every teensy tiny ’scandal’ hoping for a victory like Powerline’s (god they hate powerline) to validate themselves. Their latest rants involve Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. But they constantly misfire because they over-reach on trivial episodes, and they also give the term “beating a dead horse” new meaning. They flog a losing issue for weeks and weeks, long after its obvious they are getting zero resonance, and that the issue was never worth hyping to begin with. Anyone remember Jeff Gannon? No? This “scandal” dominated all the top lefty blogs for several MONTHS. It was never a major story. It had no potential to damage the Bush admin, or further the lefty cause. It was hyped because of the gay angle, plus the liberal paranoia that the right is actually making inroads into one of their last bastions, the MSM. I truly believe a lot of hard lefty blogs kept harping on it because it was easy prey for the kind of brutal, bigotted, juvenile cheap-shot gutter humor Jane the Hamster excels in producing. Get plenty of anal sex jokes in there.
Anyone who hopes to see the Dem agenda fail should thank Goddess, or whoever, for people like the Hamster. Sometimes she is so inadvertantly damaging to her own cause I have to wonder if the fantastic rumors of Rove Control plants isn’t true. You couldn’t dream up a more negative voice for ‘progressive’ causes and politics. She is definitely my fav daily laugh blog.