Recently Rand Paul ran into a bit of trouble over the lack of alignment of his libertarian views with his views on marriage equality. Apparently Mr. Paul belongs to the “separate but equal” school of human rights, the school that should actually be called “separate and it will never be equal.” Rand Paul thinks it’s just fine if people who want to marry someone of the same sex make do with a “contract” that “conveys certain things” (benefits, I would guess, which he didn’t specify) and that real-marriage be left to real-marriage appropriate people, i.e., heterosexual couples, so that it can remain sacred, holy, with its “religious connotation” intact.
You Can Have a Contract But Not Marriage
But as bad as his position is on marriage equality, his position on abortion and reproductive rights is so much worse. Women are not just second-class citizens to Rand Paul the way members of the LGBTQ community are, they are without a right to life when it comes to their own pregnancies.
Rand Paul has co-sponsored personhood amendments that would outlaw all abortions. He has signed on to versions with and without exemptions for pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. When recently questioned about the lack of exemptions in some of his legislation, he has a couple of answers:
Ask her [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.*
http://www.bloomberg.com/...
We should ask the other side, do you think there’s nothing special about life? Do you think there are no rights involved in a seven- and eight- and nine-pound baby?
http://www.usnews.com/...
So let’s look at these very recent statements about his opinion on abortion. In both he emphasizes "life.” But in both cases that generic term, life, refers to the fetus. Nowhere does he address or even briefly allude to the life of the pregnant woman. Instead he repeatedly talks about abortion in terms of killing "a seven-pound baby in the uterus," totally ignoring the fact that the vast majority of abortions are during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy when the fetus weighs about 1/2 ounce.
https://www.guttmacher.org/...
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/...
For Rand Paul, apparently, women’s lives are not worthy of consideration.
I am not over-stating this -- it is the logical conclusion based on Rand Paul’s own statements and lack of statements. He refuses to make clear his view on exemptions to a personhood bill, a bill that confers the same rights to the fetus as a real living breathing person. By this refusal, he leaves in place the lack of an exemption that would protect the life of the pregnant woman.
If there is no exemption even for that, he is, in effect, stating that the newly defined human rights of the fetus trump those of the woman carrying the fetus. He is saying that the 1/2 ounce embryo's existence is of greater value than the woman carrying that embryo. Without the exemption for life of the “mother,” he is advocating the death penalty for women whose pregnancy is killing them.
If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at Savita Halappanavar who died in agony in Ireland in 2012, because the doctors wouldn't perform a life-saving abortion since there was still a fetal heartbeat. Irish law on abortion and Rand Paul's views align very nicely.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The larger point here is not the very real but small number of deaths that would be
a consequence of draconian personhood laws, it's the devaluation of women as individuals, the refusal to allow women the same rights and protections that men have. And it's nothing less than the criminalization of women of childbearing age -- because if fetuses are full persons whose rights trump those of the women carrying them, then women can be monitored, fined, and even imprisoned as part of preserving the life of that so-precious fetus. And that's not absurd exaggeration, it's already happening in some states. Indiana, I'm talking about you!
(Read about these two cases in Indiana here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.theguardian.com/... )
*Note:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz responded to Paul's challenge with the following:
"Here’s an answer," said Schultz. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ’shushing’ me."
Here are some links to current War on Women stories:
According to the two doctors who wrote this article:
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson each signed legislation forcing doctors to tell women seeking medication-induced abortions that the process can be reversed once it has begun.
As doctors, we do not recommend a treatment until it’s been proven safe and effective. This legislature-supported treatment has not met these standards, so to be governmentally mandated to recommend it is deeply disturbing. Consequently, our organizations, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health, are speaking out against this reckless and dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.
http://www.msnbc.com/...
A study finds that the ACA-mandated availability of contraception for women is not always fulfilled. Apparently there are disparities in this availability:
There is variation in how the contraceptive coverage provision is being interpreted and implemented by health plans. While most carriers are complying with the spirit of this requirement, there are exceptions. Because of these coverage differences some women may not have coverage without cost-sharing to the contraceptive method of their choice.
http://kff.org/...
Sex-education that would actually help prevent the need for abortions is under attack in North Carolina:
The most glaring example of anti-sex ed legislation has recently popped up in North Carolina, where lawmakers are introducing a bill that says that Plan B does not need to be discussed in a school’s sex ed program. According to bill sponsor Rep. Chris Whitmire, R-Transylvania, Plan B is a ‘life-ending drug’ that can cause spontaneous abortion,” and he “doesn’t want North Carolina students to know anything about it.”
http://www.care2.com/...
And in other (than reproductive rights) news:
It's not only inequality in pay, it's also inequality in retirement:
But the dizzying numbers only get worse, as the wage gap doesn’t end at the workplace. For too many women, the pay gap impacts quality of life well into retirement, where far more older women find themselves living below the poverty line.
Almost twice as many, to be exact.
http://feministing.com/...
And because of Islama-Sharia-phobia, children in Idaho may not get the financial support they're entitled to. Apparently some legislators are worried that aligning the state with federal and international standards on child support issues would make Idaho subject to Sharia law.
http://samuel-warde.com/...
OTOH, a country that actual does have Sharia law is opening up to women just a bit:
http://www.arabnews.com/...