Friday, February 25, 2011

San Narciso County Republicans Defend Accusations of “War on Women”

SAN NARCISO, Calif. -- A series of proposed federal policies and laws, viewed by Democrats and progressives as overtly misogynistic, are currently being considered for local ballot initiatives by prominent San Narciso County Republicans. Responding to the backlash from the small number of liberals in the area, particularly recent high school graduates in Bennington Vale, GOP leaders are reaching out to the wider constituency to explain the motives behind the legislative initiatives and recapture support for their passage.

Carlisle Olden-Whitely, chairman of San Narciso’s foremost conservative political action committee -- Association of Republican Seniors, Wives, Young Professionals and Entrepreneurs (ARSWYPE) -- responded to the ten concerns raised.

Allegations and Clarifications
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape.

Olden-Whitely: We’re not redefining “rape” so much as refining its meaning to offer greater protections to other members of our community. If you recall, we successfully eliminated the gay housing policy at San Narciso College under similar provisions. Allowing gays to shack up only increases the likelihood of incidents of child rape. The idea that rape applies only to women who decide -- after the fact -- that they shouldn’t have been physically intimate with boyfriends or husbands is awfully narrow.

Second, abortions are not acceptable forms of birth control. It’s a slippery slope, people. If we legalize this kind of “buyer’s remorse,” we set a dangerous precedent. Imagine how that could snowball and impact our local businesses, when any unwanted item can be returned after it’s already used and worn. Here’s what I believe: not dressing in evocative clothing, drinking excessively, or flirting with strangers are the best ways to enforce abstinence. With the new health care laws in place, how many Bennington Vale taxpayers want to cover the fiscal and moral costs for a woman’s irresponsible decision? That’s an issue best left to families, not the courts.

2) A state legislator wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”

Olden-Whitely: This too makes sense. When you see the devastation left in the wake of a home invasion, robbery, or murder, it’s clear who the victims are. But things like rape, stalking, domestic violence? In a legal sense, it becomes a round of he-said she-said. Who’s to say an old friend trying to reconnect or make amends for a falling out is a stalker? How can we prove that the bruises on a woman’s arm are not the results of clumsiness? Should a man go to jail over these accusations when we don’t fully know the woman’s motive? A person is innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Sex is a consensual act. A burglary is not. So “accuser” is considerably more accurate, since all the evidence in these cases is largely circumstantial. Plus, the term is more palatable than “tattle tale” or “crybaby,” which were seriously considered. Think of it this way: do you want a judge deciding how many drinks you can have with co-workers at the local watering hole? ‘Cause that’s where this ends if we give into these ridiculous demands.

3) Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.

Olden-Whitely: All right, that bill was proposed in South Dakota, and I agree that it’s a tad austere. To be clear, the bill San Narciso County is proposing does not legally allow citizens to murder doctors who provide baby killing services. However, once abortion becomes illegal, doctors facilitating the procedure will be tried for homicide. A violation will carry a death sentence. So while these doctors will probably wind up executed, we are not advocating that ordinary citizens take such matters into their own hands. That said, and depending on the conditions, we also can’t throw away the constitution and deprive citizens of their Second Amendment protections.

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

Olden-Whitely: This cut affects men too. It has nothing to do with a perceived gender bias. It’s a simple matter of welfare reform. If we can pressure Congress to reallocate these funds to private corporations -- take Yoyodyne, for example -- then the trickle-down economic effect will eliminate the need for welfare.

Yoyodyne is working closely with Canadian firms in the oil sands to increase exploration, production, and transmission. This promises to create a wealth of new jobs, which means more money for the community. We’re not going to rid our town of poverty by just enabling the lazy. Teach a woman to fish, her family eats for a lifetime. Give a woman a fish, and she’ll want the government to stock the lake, bring in tax-funded anglers or illegal aliens, and then demand that we pay for a state-run deli to prepare it for her. I suppose we’ll have to increase contributions for a subsidized maid service too. Then you can start learning the communist dialect of Chinese that we’ll be speaking right after.

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

Olden-Whitely: This is absurd, I’m sorry. What medical proof exists to suggest that performing an abortion will save someone’s life? If anything, it’s ending somebody’s life. No group in San Narciso County is supporting a bill to let a patient die. We’re simply considering banning the unnecessary and monstrous practice of abortion.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

Olden-Whitely: Absolutely. The majority of women in our community are stay-at-home moms. Our money, by going to the small businesses and corporations that fuel our economy, ensures that people can live as single income families. Taking money away from business will only jeopardize that. Ponder the flipside. The earning power of a woman in America is dramatically less -- for equivalent work -- than a man’s. If women were forced to be the breadwinners, there’s no assurance that they’d be seeing much bread on the dinner table.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion.That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

Olden-Whitely: Does this matter? Preschool is just daycare. But if we foster a community where women can be at home with their kids 24/7, and dedicate their livelihoods to only the needs of their children, those kids will be better prepared for elementary school. Preschool teachers are babysitters for a multitude of children they don’t really know. Someone show me a definitive study of how preschools produce more successful students. Seriously.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

Olden-Whitely: Senior citizens have the same opportunities, in our free market system, as the young. They can rent senior apartments, and they can choose not to eat out all the time. This is basic budgeting and capitalism. Chances are, their husbands made the money. If they failed to plan properly for their futures, that’s not the fault of government. And employment services? The elderly are past the retirement age. They’re probably not interested in working, nor would any company want to hire them; they simply have no longevity or desire to embark on another long career. That said, many of our fast food restaurants, as well as the local Walmart, actively recruit the elderly for part-time work. Why should the government expend capital and resources when local businesses are already doing most of the heavy lifting?

9) Congress voted last week on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

Olden-Whitely: Every family in this community has access to health care. And those whose employers no longer offer sponsored benefits can pay for care on their own. When I see a teenager or a young woman in Planned Parenthood, instead of at her OBGYN, you know what message that sends to me? Abortion. The only planning going on in these back alley facilities and Mengele-esque clinics is how to terminate a budding, little life. That’s the same kind of planning one sees in campaigns of genocide. And that socialist failure ended in Germany in the 1940s. There are no Nazis here, nor should we be trying to invite them. And to reiterate, family planning is best left to families, not the courts or the taxpayers who fund them.

10) Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program, but Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses.

Olden-Whitely: I’ve already addressed the family planning issue, but let’s not forget about the number of stables in the County. I can’t even guess how many of our citizens own horses. Can you imagine what would happen if those animals began reproducing without restrictions? We’d be overrun by an equine horde. Should we also put an end to spaying and neutering pets? Do you want an infestation of stray dogs and cats leaving their waste all over your manicured lawns? I didn’t think so. And you don’t even want to picture what that would look like from a marauding pack of feral horses. I’m not willing to see Bennington Vale turned into some lawless wild west toilet like Tombstone or Escondido or San Dimas. Let's not even get started on Clovis.

Remember, though, we’re talking about contraception, not abortions. If a girl of appropriate age decides to use some form of contraception, that’s a private sin between her and her God. We don’t endorse wholesale slaughter in this city, and we will not be party to arrogantly defying what the Lord has planned for the women of San Narciso. I would expect our Democrat peers and those radicals from MoveOn.org to exercise the same good taste and restraint.
Reactions: