Sarah Palin spoke at the Susan B. Anthony List breakfast on Friday, ranting on and on, invoking "mama grizzlies," while using anti women's rights language, evidently not at all concerned that her usual rhetoric extolling the values and importance of freedoms doesn't extend to women. Don't get me wrong, I respect the rights of Sarah Palin and conservative women to make decisions that fit their lives and philosophy. Unfortunately, they do not respect mine or the millions of other women who stand up for women's individual freedoms and the right to self-determination that equals any man.
You simply can't be a feminist if you don't support a woman's individual rights. Announcing a "new conservative feminist movement" without acknowledging the individual freedoms of women won't cut it. This feministic facade that actually takes aim at women's rights should be seen for what it is.
Anything less than supporting women's full individual rights simply renders you a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud.
From Emily's List president Stephanie Schriock in response to Mrs. Palin:
"Sarah Palin talks a good game about 'grizzly bear moms' taking the country back - but I come from the West too, and her version of what American women want doesn't honor the freedom and independence that the women I grew up with in Montana cherish," said Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY's List. Referring to the "Palin 4" - four Democratic Congresswomen whom Palin displayed on her Facebook page - Schriock continued: "First she puts targets on their back, then she wants the government in their bedrooms - what is Sarah Palin doing to western women?" "Palin doesn't seem to trust American women to make their own decisions - though she speaks movingly about her own. I believe all American women are entitled to the freedom and independence I grew up with, and that EMILY's List endorsed candidates continue to fight for in states across this country." - SCHRIOCK TO PALIN: YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR MY FRONTIER
Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, remained silent, though her ineptitude has already been proven. As for NARAL and NOW, they're completely ineffectual, so nothing is expected.
Segue to Gallup's latest poll proclaiming "The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More "Pro-Life". Though it tries to bolster the Sarah Palin wing of the anti women's right lobby, Gallup needs to take a step into the 21st century, maybe taking a page from NPR's neutrality language when talking about reproductive rights. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been if Gallup had chosen abortion rights supporter (or advocate) and abortion rights opponent (or advocate). However, they have to support the status quo, which comes from another era. Until they change the language we should all take this organization for what it is: an organization that pushes an agenda that marginalizes women's freedoms in order to get a specific outcome, which benefits the right in this country, regardless of party.
Unfortunately, one particular part of the poll didn't pan out for Gallup, so they buried the statistics. When asked if abortion was "morally wrong," the number dropped from 56% who believed it is immoral in mid-2009, to 50% believing it is not immoral now in 2010. The opinion that abortion is "morally acceptable" numbers went up by 2%.
"Pro life" Independents, with no leaning to either party, have retreated by 2% points from their high of 47% in 2007-2008, back down to 45%.
But really, it's all mumbo jumbo, because Gallup has stacked the language against women's rights and freedoms.
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
But no one should be able to take a woman's freedom away from her, which is what Sarah Palin and her feministic followers want to do. Anyone who tries to strip women of our individual freedoms is not for women's rights, but also against women's freedoms, and they most certainly aren't a feminist in any real, true or important manifestation of the word.
Freedom is not just for men.
Human rights are women's rights, which include individual freedom, which no one has the right to abridge.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
Sarah commented today that she thinks Rand has good "social" ideas! Not only is she not a feminist, she is a tad bigotted if she supports Rand's social views. Racists are bores and have abhorrent behavior but we must tolerate them. Yes, but we don't have to tolerate you Rand and Sarah - get the word out and Vote in November. Thanks Rand for this insight into your real character.
(p.s.- I responded to your replies below but it was too long to reply directly.)
Were you even born in the 70's?
Do you care about poor women having access to safe health care?
TNA- what a joke and what a bunch of gals who can't think for themselves - vote V vote V (but only if your V is a conservative neothug!)
From: Lisa Jennings View Contact
To: amysisk@optonline.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you censor so much on your site? Why don't you let other's post - I know many women that are banned from posting.
Is it to continue to promote the division - because that is exactly what your group is doing and then shifts the blame.
I am concluding that your vision is myoptic - otherwise why would you continue to censor?
Did you even happen to notice the nice comments your gals made on your 5 17 2010 Palin article? They are real nice to Ms. Miller or anyone else that does not tow the line.
Is this what you envisioned? Nice.
and you're fanned ;)
Also, if the constitution says that parents' bodies are the property of their children then organ donation would be mandatory for children in need. No reason Daddy should be exempt either. If the blood type matches drag him to the hospital and carve him up as needed.
Think of the children.
Now, if you can tell me exactly when those children were given these rights, then we can have a chit-chat.
And if you say that it was decided by the court, then I will point you to Hopt v. Utah, under which it says any person who may have their life taken by a decision MUST either be present or voluntarily give up that right, even a Minor.
Did that happen? Nope
And I'd also point out that a heart starts beating at 7 weeks, and neurological activity starts at 8 weeks. Now, this may just be me, but there aren't many dead things that have a beating heart. If there was, then Terry Shiavo would have been dead before the case even went to court.
Or, we can talk to EMT, who decide you're "dead" when your heart stops beating. Now, that must mean you're alive when your heart is beating.
w/ regards to our children, the Constitution uses the word "posterity" to mean offspring. Seems to me a child a woman conceives who has a beating heart and kicks is medically alive, covered in the constitution, and is therefore required BY LAW to face a fair trial before their RIGHT to life is taken away.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902)
1) even the Bible says "life" in the mother's womb isn't a soul and body until "quickening". Before that, it's a collection of parasitic cells not viable outside the mother's body.
2) if even something as drastic as "puncturing the back of a full term infants head and vacuuming their brains out before they are fully out of the birth canal" is done -- rarely -- it's done in cases where the body of the infant is macerated and necrotic and falling to pieces weeks before, and mother presented in near-sepsis, or the fetus died because the cord strangulated it in the womb, or the placenta had a fatal abnormality, or there were no brains to be vacuumed out (anencephalic).
I wish you rabid fanatics had just an iota of medical knowledge, and would stop your destructive campaigns based on some half-crazy ex-nurse's hyperbolic tales of "hearing cries" -- yeah, what she probably heard was gas escaping from the rotting fetal corpse.
I remember her support of Palin in the last election. I remember Suskind's little snit about how she was sick of the put-downs of soccer mommies...I remember her rant about how women should support women based strictly on gender, that old feminist were just "out" and "she-who-must-be-obeyed" were in...like civil rights are a fad!
Now she runs her own little "tea party" of conservative women (she says they're from all walks of life, but their bio's scream corporatist, media mogul, steeplejack'ers like Linda Klinge, new VP of NOW, plus, and assortment lovely republican "board members" who never worked a day in their life).
Now, I remember little Amy...she banned my way back when, too...(she can't take the heat).
Listen those "gals" got a problem with anyone that contradicts their idolization of palin: then when you call them on it: they censor you! Ha. Like voting V is the answer: sorry that itself is sexist. Yet they don't see it and accuse me of being an elitist because feminism didn't fail me - freaking unbelievable.
My lady Sarah is an opportunist from day one, talking and laughing all the way to the bank (only in America where so many believe such cinematics). She needs to go on stage or maybe she's looking to take over from Ms Phyllis Shyfler (misp) conservative group. She wants something.
So all of you Sister Sarah supporters, fire up the goggle, and take a look at just what these groups have in store for you and yours.
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
So we have over 80% of Christian women having abortions but they tell the rest of us we can not.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
We will be a better country when each religious group can trust its members to obey the dictates of their own religious faith without assistance from the legal structure of the country.
-- Margaret Mead
I also understand polls change and are not 100% accurate
Sarah Palin is a Palinist.
If it's good for Sarah then she's all for it. If it's going to make Sarah more money, then it's all good.