July 03, 2006
Take a look at this turd that Bush slipped into America’s punchbowl while we weren’t paying enough attention:
James Leon Holmes, nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas, says it straight out in an article: “It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception … To the extent we adopt the feminist principle that the distinction between the sexes is of no consequence and should be disregarded in the organization of society and the Church, we are contributing to the culture of death.” His stated solution is that “ … the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband.”
Posted by Jerome Doolittle at July 03, 2006 11:23 AM
Wow. Just... wow. And just think about what this:
Holmes wrote that the proper role of women in marriage should be a biblical one, in which a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and "place herself under the authority of the man.
Implies about this:
Holmes dismissed the impact of a total abortion ban on impregnated rape victims as a trifle: "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."
Anyone else get the sense that the second one is true by definition for him, since he probably doesn't belive there's such a thing as rape? Well, unless the victim is a rich, white, Christian virgin who was sodomized by one o' them nigras.
I've written to both my senators, asking them to reassure me they did not vote for this Brownback wannabe. They're both Rs, so of course they did, given the vote, but at least they know I disapprove (as if they care).
In 1995 North Carolina representative Henry Aldridge, a 71 year old periodontist, still practicing I believe at the time, , made the following remarks during a debate on a state abortion funds being available for poor women. ""The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functioins don't work, and they don't get pregnant. He went on to insist that "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."
He went on to say at some point: "To get pregnant, it takes a little cooperation, and there ain't much cooperation in a rape."
It doesn't matter how stupid one makes oneself out to look: pushing the agenda no matteer what. Holmes and Aldridge, obviously birds of a feather.
I can top that, At. I can't remember his name, but a top Pennsylvania legislator from Delaware County, maybe president pro tem of the state senate, in support of former Governor Bob Casey's attempt to prohibit all abortion, with no if, and, or but, made many vehement speeches insisting that scientific data proved it's medically impossible for rape to lead to pregnancy. He knew for a fact that pregnancy required the woman to produce some sort of a pleasure enzyme, which would be impossible in a "true" rape.
Anybody who remembers the name and the details, please chime in, but I vaguely remember that he became so incensed that the state would allow an abortion on any account, that he ran for governor himself on that platform (and fortunately didn't win).
...and it is not coincidental that our most misogynist politicians are the most zealous cutters of public services. Every loss of public day care, education, health care, etc. makes the ill, old, and young more dependent for private help on their friends and families, which means that greater private obligations fall on people who were raised to measure their self-worth in terms of helpfulness and kindness -- which means women. Women as servants indentured to nurseries and sickbeds. Women regardless of ability, talent, temperament or training cleaning up bodily fluids without pay as a matter of duty and not employment. No salary, no vacation, no respite, not even a right to think of the day's hard work in terms of the dignity of labor -- it becomes merely an informal thing women do, not formally recognized "work". Every public service budget cut pushes women farther back into the hutches from which we briefly escaped before and after the 1950s. The overall idea, I sometimes fear, is to ensure that the moments of freedom and equality achieved in the twentieth century are firmly bookended as temporary departures from the ancient historical rule. On the first Independence Day, freedom was for free male heads of households only, and publicly recognized freedom for such figures included their "right" to exercise private tyranny over subordinated members of those households. There are some who want us to regress in that direction.
I never understand why women reps vote for this garbage, but they do. Why?