Scott Walker is not the only Republican pretending he isn’t waging a personal war on women. Walker, as is (hopefully) well known by now, has tried to glide through the upcoming election by positioning himself as vaguely “pro-life” without talking about his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
Walker realizes hating on women isn’t exactly a good way to get elected. But if he still makes noise, he hopes the Religious Right won’t get down on him too much for temporizing. You know, because the Bible says you should be all things to all people, and don’t hate on the fence sitters, and liars are blessed and all. Right?
And we’ve already seen George F. Will say of Colorado Republican Rep. Cory Gardner that “What does it matter since it won’t pass anyway?” I mean, how bad can the guy be wanting to attack women if he has no actual chance of ever doing it? Isn’t that some great logic?
But Cory Gardner is not the only Colorado Republican to pretend to be something he isn’t. Mother Jones reported on Friday that “In an interview aired Wednesday on Colorado Public Radio, [Bob] Beauprez, a former congressman, struck a decidedly pro-choice note when asked about abortion and birth control. He said he would not stand in the way of women having access to abortions, nor would he interfere with women choosing what kind of birth control to use.”
I respect people’s opinion, women’s right to that choice,” he said. He later added, “I don’t want to run somebody else’s family and make decisions for their family, their life; I want them to have the opportunity and the freedom to do that themselves.
That is Beauprez today, needing to be elected. But zoom back to Beauprez in 2005, when, as Rep. Beauprez, he cosponsored the Right to Life Act, to give “equal protection for the right to life of each born and pre-born human person.”
Boy, those pre-born get all the breaks don’t they? To be able to be born into a world where the Republicans will then dismiss them as so much chattel, unworthy of an education, worthless bums who refuse to work, don’t need to eat, and sure as shooting don’t need no medical care!
Mother Jones goes on:
As a gubernatorial candidate, Beauprez has not wavered from his decidedly anti-abortion position. He continues to say that he opposes all forms of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest unless the mother’s life is at risk. He bragged to an interviewer in March about his “100 percent pro-life voting record.” He also claims that an IUD is an abortifacient, not contraception. Beauprez has not said how he’d act on these beliefs, though he says he would eliminate all state funding for Planned Parenthood.
Yes, quite the supporter of women’s rights, isn’t he? In fact, he supports women’s rights like the Old Testament God supports freedom of religion.
We see Scott Brown of Massachusetts/New Hampshire trying the same thing. Now Scott can’t decide where he’s from. He might be running in Maine next, if the NH gig doesn’t work out for him. But for now he’s not only trying to pretend he is NOT the guy from MA, but he is trying to pretend he is women-friendly.
This, despite past support for legislation – Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, “An Act Relative to a Woman’s Right to Know” of 2003 – that would require women to be shown photos of developing fetuses and wait 24 hours before having an abortion procedure. If he didn’t exactly want to force women to view these photos, he certainly supported forcing doctors to show them the photos, which amounts to the same thing.
The Boston Globe reported on October 8 that Brown was,
Launching a new ad today affirming his “pro-choice” stance and defending himself against a sharp TV attack that began airing Tuesday from his US Senate rival, incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.
In measured tones, Brown notes Shaheen’s ad “calling into question my support for women’s health care” and tells viewers he wants them to know the facts.
“I’m pro-choice,” Brown says directly to camera, with soft music in the background. “I support continued funding for Planned Parenthood, and I believe women should have access to contraception.”
Brown also supported the Hobby Lobby decision, citing a threat to our “freedoms” and also the Blunt Amendment, which would allow employers to withhold contraception on religious or moral grounds.
Doesn’t sound all that women-friendly to me, Scotty Boy.
And here I thought these wannabe Religious Right types opposed moral relativism. When the truth is what you need it to be at the moment – because you know you need women’s votes and your opposition to abortion and contraception isn’t going to get you those votes – it sounds more like they excel at it instead.
Don’t trust Republican wolves in sheep’s clothing. If it’s too good to be true, the rule of thumb is that it’s too good to be true. Don’t believe them. Vote Democrat. Ladies, if a Republican says he has your back, clench.
It’s not because he wants to give you a back rub.